scholarly journals Cost per responder for upadacitinib vs abatacept in patients with moderate-to-severe Rheumatoid Arthritis in Italy

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 69-79
Author(s):  
Roberto Caporali ◽  
Roberto Ravasio ◽  
Paola Raimondo ◽  
Fausto Salaffi
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Clinical Efficacy ◽  
Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Duration Of Treatment ◽  
American College Of Rheumatology ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Efficacy Measure ◽  
Cost Per Responder ◽  
The Cost

Purpose: The objective of this economic evaluation was to compare the cost per responder between upadacitinib and abatacept (intravenous [iv] or subcutaneous [sc]) in patients with moderate-to-severe Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) in Italy. Methods: The clinical efficacy was assessed based on SELECT-CHOICE study results. The clinical efficacy of upadacitinib and abatacept (iv or sc) was measured by Clinical Remission (CR), Low Disease Activity (LDA) and American College of Rheumatology response (ACR20, 50 and 70). The treatment cost was based on the number of administrations dispensed at 12 or 24 weeks. The cost per responder was adopted as a cost-effectiveness indicator. Results: Independent of the clinical efficacy measure used and the duration of treatment considered, the cost per responder was consistently lower for upadacitinib compared to abatacept (iv or sc) across all clinical measures. For example, considering the CR at 24 weeks, the cost per responder for upadacitinib was € 9,417 compared to € 17,817 for abatacept sc or to € 23,110 for abatacept iv. The differences in the cost per responder between upadacitinib and abatacept (iv or sc) increased when higher ACR response levels were considered. Conclusions: These results suggested that upadacitinib is a cost-effectiveness option compared to abatacept (iv or sc) from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service in patients with moderate-to-severe Rheumatoid Arthritis in Italy.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Biopharmaceuticals for Treating Rheumatoid Arthritis: Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Ahmad Gholami ◽  
Jassem Azizpoor ◽  
Elham Aflaki ◽  
Mehdi Rezaee ◽  
Khosro Keshavarz
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The Other ◽  
Cost Data ◽  
Fars Province ◽  
Study Results ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Cost

Introduction. Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic progressive inflammatory disease that causes joint destruction. The condition imposes a significant economic burden on patients and societies. The present study is aimed at evaluating the cost-effectiveness of Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept in treating rheumatoid arthritis in Iran. Methods. This is a cost-effectiveness study of economic evaluation in which the Markov model was used. The study was carried out on 154 patients with rheumatoid arthritis in Fars province taking Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept. The patients were selected through sampling. In this study, the cost data were collected from a community perspective, and the outcomes were the mean reductions in DAS-28 and QALY. The cost data collection form and the EQ-5D questionnaire were also used to collect the required data. The results were presented in the form of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and the sensitivity analysis was used to measure the robustness of the study results. The TreeAge Pro and Excel softwares were used to analyze the collected data. Results. The results showed that the mean costs and the QALY rates in the Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept arms were $ 79,518.33 and 12.34, $ 91,695.59 and 13.25, and $ 87,440.92 and 11.79, respectively. The one-way sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results. In addition, the results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) indicated that on the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, Infliximab was in the acceptance area and below the threshold in 77% of simulations. The scatter plot was in the mentioned area in 81% and 91% of simulations compared with Adalimumab and Etanercept, respectively, implying lower costs and higher effectiveness than the other two alternatives. Therefore, the strategy was more cost-effective. Conclusion. According to the results of this study, Infliximab was more cost-effective than the other two medications. Therefore, it is recommended that physicians use this medication as the priority in treating rheumatoid arthritis. It is also suggested that health policymakers consider the present study results in preparing treatment guidelines for RA.

scholarly journals The Effect of Dose Escalation on the Cost-Effectiveness of Etanercept and Adalimumab with Methotrexate Among Patients with Moderate to Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (10) ◽  
pp. 1236-1242
Author(s):  
Devin Incerti ◽  
Ervant J. Maksabedian Hernandez ◽  
Joseph Tkacz ◽  
Jeroen P. Jansen ◽  
David Collier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Dose Escalation ◽  
Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
The Cost

scholarly journals The Cost-Effectiveness of Biologic Dmards in Patients With Severe or Mild-To-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis After Conventional Dmards

2014 ◽  
Vol 17 (7) ◽  
pp. A380
Author(s):  
A.J. Wailoo ◽  
M. Stevenson ◽  
J. Tosh ◽  
M. Hernández ◽  
J.W. Stevens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Biologic Dmards ◽  
Conventional Dmards ◽  
The Cost

scholarly journals Comparative pharmacoeconomic analysis of the use of erythropoiesis-stimulating drugs for the treatment of anemia in cancer patients

2021 ◽  
pp. 174-182
Author(s):  
I. S. Krysanov ◽  
E. V. Makarova ◽  
V. Yu. Ermakova
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Clinical Efficacy ◽  
Pharmacoeconomic Analysis ◽  
Care Organization ◽  
Epoetin Alfa ◽  
Patients Rights ◽  
Epoetin Beta ◽  
Level Increase ◽  
The Cost

Introduction. Currently, a number of pharmacoeconomic studies describing use of erythropoietin stimulating agent (ESA) in cancer patients with anemia have been published, however, most of the publications on this topic are foreign. At the same time, there are practically no studies comparing the economic efficiency of various ESA preparations with each other. Some of works by foreign colleagues reflect that the clinical efficacy of using ESA namely the degree of increase in Hb, significantly depends on the patient’s body weight: the higher the weight, the greater the dose of EPO is required for a single administration and a course of therapy.Aim. Сomparative pharmacoeconomic analysis of epoetin alfa usage for the treatment of anemia in adult cancer patients with weight 80 kg.Materials and methods. The following drugs were selected for comparative analysis: epoetin alfa, epoetin beta, darbepoetin. Clinical efficacy was assessed in terms of the rate of in Hb level increase. Pharmacoeconomic analysis was carried out using the cost-effectiveness method (CEA).Results. Тhe usage of epoetin alfa 12,000 IU for 8 weeks therapy course in cancer patients weighting over 80 kg had a better cost-effectiveness ratio compared to epoetin alfa (10,000 IU, 30,000 IU, 40,000 IU) and darbepoetin, giving way in price only to the cheapest epoetin beta which can be administered 4 injections simultaneously. Its the infringement of patients rights to avoid additional pain. Its the infringement of patients rights to avoid additional pain. At the 16th week of therapy, the usage of epoetin alfa 12,000 IU had an advantage over all ESA.Conclusions. Тhe usage of russian epoetin alfa 12,000 IU for the treatment of anemia in adult cancer patients weighing over 80 kg approximately in real clinical practice in Russian Federation is an economically justified approach to the medical care organization. 

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document