Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Economics of Stratified Medicine in Rheumatoid Arthritis

  • Health Economics and Quality of Life (M Harrison, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Rheumatology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Clinically relevant examples of stratified medicine are available for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The aim of this study was to understand the current economic evidence for stratified medicine in RA. Two systematic reviews were conducted to identify: (1) all economic evaluations of stratified treatments for rheumatoid arthritis, or those which have used a subgroup analysis, and (2) all stated preference studies of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis. Ten economic evaluations of stratified treatments for RA, 38 economic evaluations including with a subgroup analysis and eight stated preference studies were identified. There was some evidence to support that stratified approaches to treating a patient with RA may be cost-effective. However, there remain key gaps in the economic evidence base needed to support the introduction of stratified medicine in RA into healthcare systems and considerable uncertainty about how proposed stratified approaches will impact future patient preferences, outcomes and costs when used in routine practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Redekop KW, Mladsi D. The faces of personalized medicine: a framework for understanding its meaning and scope. Value Health. 2013;16(6):S4–9. This paper offers a framework for understanding the concept of personalised medicine.

  2. Schleidgen S, Klinger C, Bertram T, Rogowski WH, Marckmann G. What is personalized medicine: sharpening a vague term based on a systematic literature review. BMC Med Ethics. 2013;14(55):1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Jayakumar K, Norton S, Dixey J, James D, Gough A, Williams P, et al. Sustained clinical remission in rheumatoid arthritis: prevalence and prognostic factors in an inception cohort of patients treated with conventional DMARDS. Rheumatol. 2012;51(1):169–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Scirè CA, Verstappen SM, Mirjafari H, Bunn DK, Lunt M, Montecucco C, et al. Reduction of long-term disability in inflammatory polyarthritis by early and persistent suppression of joint inflammation: results from the Norfolk Arthritis Register. Arthritis Care Res. 2011;63(7):945–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Nikiphorou E, Guh D, Bansback N, Zhang W, Dixey J, Williams P, et al. Work disability rates in RA. Results from an inception cohort with 24 years follow-up. Rheumatol. 2012;51(2):385–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Smolen J 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. National Collaborating Centre for Chronic Conditions. Rheumatoid arthritis: national clinical guideline for management and treatment in adults. London: Royal College of Physicians; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  8. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab and Abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis after the failure of a TNF inhibitor. NICE Technol Apprais 195. London: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2010.

  9. Smolen JS, Aletaha D, Bijlsma JWJ, et al. Treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: recommendations of an international task force. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69(4):631–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Littman BH. Translational strategies to implement personalized medicine: rheumatoid arthritis examples. Pers Med. 2009;6(4):429–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Isaacs JD, Ferracciolo G. The need for personalised medicine for rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70(1):4–7. This paper summarises some of the key approaches to personalised medicine in RA.

  12. Hughes LB, Danila MI, Bridges SL. Recent advances in personalizing rheumatoid arthritis therapy and management. Pers Med. 2009;6(2):159–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Ranganathan P. Pharmacogenomics of tumor necrosis factor antagonists in rheumatoid arthritis. Pharmacogenomics. 2005;6(5):481–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Faulkner E, Annemans L, Garrison L, et al. Challenges in the development and reimbursement of personalized medicine: payer and manufacturer perspectives and implications for health outcomes and economics research: a report of the ISPOR personalized medicine special interest group. Value Health. 2012;15(8):1162–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21(2):145–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Beaulieu M, de Denus S, Lachaine J. Systematic review of pharmacoeconomic studies of pharmacogenomic tests. Pharmacogenomics. 2010;11(11):1573–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Carlson JJ, Henrikson NB, Veenstra DL, Ramsey SD. Economic analyses of human genetics services: a systematic review. Genet Med. 2005;7(8):519–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Djalalov S, Musa Z, Mendelson M, Siminovitch K, Hoch J. A review of economic evaluations of genetic testing services and interventions (2004–2009). Genet Med. 2011;13(2):89–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Giacomini M, Miller F, O’Brien B. Economic considerations for health insurance coverage of emerging genetic tests. Community Genet. 2003;6(2):61–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hatz MH, Schremser K, Rogowski WH. Is individualized medicine more cost-effective? A systematic review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(5):443–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jarrett J, Mugford M. Genetic health technology and economic evaluation: a critical review. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2006;5(1):27–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Phillips KA, van Bebber SL. A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of pharmacogenomic interventions. Pharmacogenomics. 2004;5(8):1139–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Phillips KA, Ann Sakowski J, Trosman J, Douglas MP, Liang SY, Neumann P. The economic value of personalized medicine tests: what we know and what we need to know. Genet Med. 2014;16(3):251–7. This paper is the most recent previous systematic review of economic evaluations of personalised medicine.

  24. Rogowski W. Genetic screening by DNA technology: a systematic review of health economic evidence. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22(3):327–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Vegter S, Boersma C, Rozenbaum M, Wilffert B, Navis G, Postma M. Pharmacoeconomic evaluations of pharmacogenetic and genomic screening programmes: a systematic review on content and adherence to guidelines. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(7):569–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Vegter S, Jansen E, Postma MJ, Boersma C. Economic evaluations of pharmacogenetic and genomic screening programs: update of the literature. Drug Dev Res. 2010;71(8):492–501.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Wong WB, Carlson JJ, Thariani R, Veenstra DL. Cost effectiveness of pharmacogenomics: a critical and systematic review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(11):1001–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Harrison M, Rigby D, Vass C, Flynn T, Louviere J, Payne K. Risk as an attribute in discrete choice experiments: a systematic review of the literature. Patient. 2014;7(2):151–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Benucci M, Saviola G, Baiardi P, Manfredi M. Cost-effectiveness treatment with rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in real life. Rheumatol Int. 2011;31(11):1465–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hoving J, Bartelds GM, Sluiter JK, Sadiraj K, Groot I, Lems WF, et al. Perceived work ability, quality of life, and fatigue in patients with rheumatoid arthritis after a 6-month course of TNF inhibitors: prospective intervention study and partial economic evaluation. Scand J Rheumatol. 2009;38(4):246–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 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. 2004;63(1):4–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Virkki LM, Konttinen YT, Peltomaa R, Suontama K, Saario R, Immonen K, et al. Cost-effectiveness of infliximab in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2008;26(6):1059–66.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Davey PJ, Meyer E. The cost effectiveness of misoprostol prophylaxis alongside long term nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: implications of the MUCOSA trial. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17(3):295–304.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Bergquist SR, Felson DT, Prashker MJ, Freedberg KA. The cost-effectiveness of liver biopsy in rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with methotrexate. Arthritis Rheum. 1995;38(3):326–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kim SK, Jun JB, El-Sohemy A, Bae SC. Cost-effectiveness analysis of MTHFR polymorphism screening by polymerase chain reaction in Korean patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving methotrexate. J Rheumatol. 2006;33(7):1266–74.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Konnopka A, Conrad K, Baerwald C, König HH. Cost effectiveness of the determination of autoantibodies against cyclic citrullinated peptide in the early diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2008;67(10):1399–405.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kowada A. Cost effectiveness of interferon-gamma release assay for tuberculosis screening of rheumatoid arthritis patients prior to initiation of tumor necrosis factor-α antagonist therapy. Mol Diagn Ther. 2010;14(6):367–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Krieckaert CL, Nair SC, Nurmohamed MT, van Dongen CJ, Lems WF, Lafeber FP, et al. Personalised treatment using serum drug levels of adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: an evaluation of costs and effects. Ann Rheum Dis. 2013. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204101.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Marra CA, Esdaile JM, Anis AH. Practical pharmacogenetics: the cost effectiveness of screening for thiopurine s-methyltransferase polymorphisms in patients with rheumatological conditions treated with azathioprine. J Rheumatol. 2002;29(12):2507–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Oh KT, Anis AH, Bae SC. Pharmacoeconomic analysis of thiopurine methyltransferase polymorphism screening by polymerase chain reaction for treatment with azathioprine in Korea. Rheumatol. 2004;43(2):156–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Soloman DH, Kuntz KM. Should postmenopausal women with rheumatoid arthritis who are starting corticosteroid treatment be screened for osteoporosis? A cost-effectiveness analysis. Arthritis Rheum. 2000;43(9):1967–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Suter LG, Fraenkel L, Braithwaite RS. Cost-effectiveness of adding magnetic resonance imaging to rheumatoid arthritis management. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(7):657–67.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Thompson AJ, Newman WG, Elliott RA, Roberts SA, Tricker K, Payne K. The cost-effectiveness of a pharmacogenetic test: a trial-based evaluation of TPMT genotyping for azathioprine. Value Health. 2014;17(1):22–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Augustovski F, Beratarrechea A, Irazola V, Rubinstein F, Tesolin P, Gonzalez J, et al. Patient preferences for biologic agents in rheumatoid arthritis: a discrete-choice experiment. Value Health. 2013;16(2):385–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Constantinescu F, Goucher S, Weinstein A, Smith W, Fraenkel L. Understanding why rheumatoid arthritis patient treatment preferences differ by race. Arthritis Rheum. 2009;61(4):413–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Constantinescu F, Goucher S, Weinstein A, Fraenkel L. Racial disparities in treatment preferences for rheumatoid arthritis. Med Care. 2009;47(3):350–5.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Fraenkel L, Bogardus S, Concato J, Felson D, Wittink D. Patient preferences for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004;63(11):1372–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Kievit W, van Hulst L, van Riel P, Fraenkel L. Factors that influence rheumatologists’ decisions to escalate care in rheumatoid arthritis: results from a choice-based conjoint analysis. Arthritis Care Res. 2010;62(6):842–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Ozdemir S, Johnson FR, Hauber AB. Hypothetical bias, cheap talk, and stated willingness to pay for health care. J Health Econ. 2009;28(4):894–901.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Skjoldborg US, Lauridsen J, Junker P. Reliability of the discrete choice experiment at the input and output level in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Value Health. 2009;12(1):153–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Slothuus U, Larsen ML, Junker P. The contingent ranking method—a feasible and valid method when eliciting preferences for health care? Soc Sci Med. 2002;54(10):1601–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Karnon J. Alternative decision modelling techniques for the valuation of health care technologies: Markov processes versus discrete event simulation. Health Econ. 2003;12(10):837–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Karnon J, Stahl J, Brennan A, Caro JJ, Mar J, Möller J. Modeling using discrete event simulation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-4. Value Health. 2012;15(6):821–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Soares MO, Bojke L, Dumville J, Iglesias C, Cullum N, Claxton K. Methods to elicit experts’ beliefs over uncertain quantities: application to a cost effectiveness transition model of negative pressure wound therapy for severe pressure ulceration. Stat Med. 2011;30(19):2363–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by a grant from innovate UK.

We would like the thank Cheryl Jones, Stuart Wright and Caroline Vass for their assistance in second screening the abstracts for the systematic review.

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

ᅟ

Conflict of Interest

Sean Gavan reports that he conducted this work as part of his Ph.D. at The University of Manchester funded by an NIHR Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit (BRU) Ph.D. studentship (UK).

Mark Harrison and Cynthia Iglesias declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Anne Barton reports the receipt of consulting fees from Eli Lilly and research grants from Pfizer.

Andrea Manca reports the receipt of educational speaker’s fees and reimbursement of travel fees from CPR-Sante.

Katherine Payne reports that she has a research programme of work, supported by various public funding bodies, on the economics of stratified and personalised medicines and screening programmes which include the research topics addressed here.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Manchester Centre for Health Economics, Institute of Population Health, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK

    Sean Gavan & Katherine Payne

  2. Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

    Mark Harrison

  3. Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK

    Cynthia Iglesias

  4. Arthritis Research UK Centre for Genetics and Genomics, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, Institute of Inflammation and Repair, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

    Anne Barton

  5. Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK

    Andrea Manca

Authors
  1. Sean Gavan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark Harrison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cynthia Iglesias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anne Barton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andrea Manca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Katherine Payne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katherine Payne.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Health Economics and Quality of Life

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOC 385 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gavan, S., Harrison, M., Iglesias, C. et al. Economics of Stratified Medicine in Rheumatoid Arthritis. Curr Rheumatol Rep 16, 468 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11926-014-0468-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11926-014-0468-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation