Cost-effectiveness of infliximab versus conventional combination treatment in methotrexate-refractory early rheumatoid arthritis: 2-year results of the register-enriched randomised controlled SWEFOT trial

Jonas K Eriksson, Johan A Karlsson, Johan Bratt, Ingemar F Petersson, Ronald F van Vollenhoven, Sofia Ernestam, Pierre Geborek, Martin Neovius, Jonas K Eriksson, Johan A Karlsson, Johan Bratt, Ingemar F Petersson, Ronald F van Vollenhoven, Sofia Ernestam, Pierre Geborek, Martin Neovius

Abstract

Objective: To estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of infliximab versus conventional combination treatment over 21 months in patients with methotrexate-refractory early rheumatoid arthritis.

Methods: In this multicentre, two-arm, parallel, randomised, active-controlled, open-label trial, rheumatoid arthritis patients with <1 year symptom duration were recruited from 15 rheumatology clinics in Sweden between October 2002 and December 2005. After 3-4 months of methotrexate monotherapy, patients not achieving low disease activity were randomised to addition of infliximab or sulfasalazine+hydroxychloroquine (conventional treatment group). Costs of drugs, healthcare use, and productivity losses were retrieved from nationwide registers, while EuroQol 5-Dimensions utility was collected quarterly.

Results: Of 487 patients initially enrolled, 128 and 130 were randomised to infliximab and conventional treatment, respectively. The infliximab group accumulated higher drug and healthcare costs (€27,487 vs €10,364; adjusted mean difference €16,956 (95% CI 14,647 to 19,162)), while productivity losses did not differ (€33,804 vs €29,220; €3961 (95% CI -3986 to 11,850)), resulting in higher societal cost compared to the conventional group (€61,291 vs €39,584; €20,916 (95% CI 12,800 to 28,660)). Mean accumulated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) did not differ (1.10 vs 1.12; adjusted mean difference favouring infliximab treatment 0.01 (95% CI -0.07 to 0.08)). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the infliximab versus conventional treatment strategy were €2,404,197/QALY from the societal perspective and €1,948,919/QALY from the healthcare perspective.

Conclusions: In early, methotrexate-refractory rheumatoid arthritis, a treatment strategy commencing with addition of infliximab, as compared to sulfasalazine+hydroxychloroquine, was not cost-effective over 21 months at willingness to pay levels generally considered acceptable.

Trial registration number: NCT00764725.

Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Bootstrapped incremental cost-effectiveness ratio plots by societal and healthcare perspective for the infliximab versus the conventional treatment strategy.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves by societal and healthcare perspective for the infliximab versus the conventional treatment strategy.

References

    1. Lauer MS, D'Agostino RB., Sr The randomized registry trial—the next disruptive technology in clinical research? N Engl J Med 2013;369:1579–81.
    1. van Vollenhoven RF, Ernestam S, Geborek P, et al. Addition of infliximab compared with addition of sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine to methotrexate in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (Swefot trial): 1-year results of a randomised trial. Lancet 2009;374:459–66.
    1. van Vollenhoven RF, Geborek P, Forslind K, et al. Conventional combination treatment versus biological treatment in methotrexate-refractory early rheumatoid arthritis: 2 year follow-up of the randomised, non-blinded, parallel-group Swefot trial. Lancet 2012;379:1712–20.
    1. Karlsson JA, Neovius M, Nilsson JA, et al. Addition of infliximab compared with addition of sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine to methotrexate in early rheumatoid arthritis: 2-year quality-of-life results of the randomised, controlled, SWEFOT trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2013;72:1927–33.
    1. Eriksson JK, Neovius M, Bratt J, et al. Biological vs. conventional combination treatment and work loss in early rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized trial. JAMA Intern Med 2013;173:1407–14.
    1. Neovius M, Sundstrom A, Simard J, et al. Small-area variations in sales of TNF inhibitors in Sweden between 2000 and 2009. Scand J Rheumatol 2011;40:8–15.
    1. Schoels M, Wong J, Scott DL, et al. Economic aspects of treatment options in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic literature review informing the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:995–1003.
    1. van der Velde G, Pham B, Machado M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of biologic response modifiers compared to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2011;63:65–78.
    1. Arnett FC, Edworthy SM, Bloch DA, et al. The American Rheumatism Association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1988;31:315–24.
    1. Prevoo ML, van't Hof MA, Kuper HH, et al. 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;38:44–8.
    1. van Gestel AM, Prevoo ML, van't Hof MA, et al. Development and validation of the European League Against Rheumatism response criteria for rheumatoid arthritis. Comparison with the preliminary American College of Rheumatology and the World Health Organization/International League Against Rheumatism Criteria. Arthritis Rheum 1996;39:34–40.
    1. Ludvigsson JF, Andersson E, Ekbom A, et al. External review and validation of the Swedish national inpatient register. BMC Public Health 2011;11:450.
    1. Askling J, Fored CM, Geborek P, et al. Swedish registers to examine drug safety and clinical issues in RA. Ann Rheum Dis 2006;65:707–12.
    1. Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF, van Ineveld BM, et al. The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease. J Health Econ 1995;14:171–89.
    1. Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996;37:53–72.
    1. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997;35:1095–108.
    1. Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care 2005;43:203–20.
    1. Willan AR, Briggs AH, Hoch JS. Regression methods for covariate adjustment and subgroup analysis for non-censored cost-effectiveness data. Health Econ 2004;13:461–75.
    1. Thompson SG, Barber JA. How should cost data in pragmatic randomised trials be analysed? BMJ 2000;320:1197–200.
    1. van Hout BA, Al MJ, Gordon GS, et al. Costs, effects and C/E-ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ 1994;3:309–19.
    1. NICE. Methods for the development of NICE public health guidance. 3rd edn 2012. [cited 2013 April 3].
    1. Shiroiwa T, Sung YK, Fukuda T, et al. International survey on willingness-to-pay (WTP) for one additional QALY gained: what is the threshold of cost effectiveness? Health Econ 2010;19:422–37.
    1. van den Hout WB, Goekoop-Ruiterman YP, Allaart CF, et al. Cost-utility analysis of treatment strategies in patients with recent-onset rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2009;61:291–9.
    1. van den Hout W, Klarenbeek N, Dirven L, et al. Long-term cost-utility analysis of treatment strategies in patients with recent-onset rheumatoid arthritis—5 year follow-up data from the BeSt study. Ann Rheum Dis 2012;71(Suppl3):363.
    1. Boers M. The cost-utility analysis of the BeSt trial: is a camel in fact a horse with abnormalities in the distribution of dorsal fat? Comment on the article by van den Hout et al . Arthritis Rheum 2009;61:1616–17; author reply 1617–1618.
    1. Chen YF, Jobanputra P, Barton P, et al. 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 2006;10:iii–iv, xi-xiii, 1–229.
    1. Moreland LW, O'Dell JR, Paulus HE, et al. A randomized comparative effectiveness study of oral triple therapy versus etanercept plus methotrexate in early aggressive rheumatoid arthritis: the treatment of Early Aggressive Rheumatoid Arthritis Trial. Arthritis Rheum 2012;64:2824–35.
    1. Rantalaiho V, Kautiainen H, Korpela M, et al. Targeted treatment with a combination of traditional DMARDs produces excellent clinical and radiographic long-term outcomes in early rheumatoid arthritis regardless of initial infliximab. The 5-year follow-up results of a randomised clinical trial, the NEO-RACo trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73:1954–61.
    1. O'Dell JR, Mikuls TR, Taylor TH, et al. Therapies for active rheumatoid arthritis after methotrexate failure. N Engl J Med 2013;369:307–18.
    1. Jacobsson LT, Lindroth Y, Marsal L, et al. Rheumatoid arthritis: what does it cost and what factors are driving those costs? Results of a survey in a community-derived population in Malmo, Sweden. Scand J Rheumatol 2007;36:179–83.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren