Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • COVID-19 and Rheumatology
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services

User menu

  • My Cart
  • Log In

Search

  • Advanced search
The Journal of Rheumatology
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services
  • My Cart
  • Log In
The Journal of Rheumatology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • COVID-19 and Rheumatology
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • Follow jrheum on Twitter
  • Visit jrheum on Facebook
  • Follow jrheum on LinkedIn
  • Follow jrheum on YouTube
  • Follow jrheum on Instagram
  • Follow jrheum on RSS
Research ArticleRheumatoid Arthritis

The Cost-effectiveness of Sequences of Biological Disease-modifying Antirheumatic Drug Treatment in England for Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Can Tolerate Methotrexate

Matt D. Stevenson, Allan J. Wailoo, Jonathan C. Tosh, Monica Hernandez-Alava, Laura A. Gibson, John W. Stevens, Rachel J. Archer, Emma L. Simpson, Emma S. Hock, Adam Young and David L. Scott
The Journal of Rheumatology July 2017, 44 (7) 973-980; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.160941
Matt D. Stevenson
From the School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield; Department of Rheumatology, West Hertfordshire Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Trust, Hertfordshire; Department of Rheumatology, King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: m.d.stevenson@shef.ac.uk
Allan J. Wailoo
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jonathan C. Tosh
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Monica Hernandez-Alava
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Laura A. Gibson
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John W. Stevens
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rachel J. Archer
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Emma L. Simpson
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Emma S. Hock
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Adam Young
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David L. Scott
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
  • eLetters
PreviousNext
Loading

Abstract

Objective. To ascertain whether strategies of treatment with a biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) are cost-effective in an English setting. Results are presented for those patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and those with severe RA.

Methods. An economic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of 7 bDMARD was developed. A systematic literature review and network metaanalysis was undertaken to establish relative clinical effectiveness. The results were used to populate the model, together with estimates of Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score following European League Against Rheumatism response; annual costs, and utility, per HAQ band; trajectory of HAQ for patients taking bDMARD; and trajectory of HAQ for patients using nonbiologic therapy (NBT). Results were presented as those associated with the strategy with the median cost-effectiveness. Supplementary analyses were undertaken assessing the change in cost-effectiveness when only patients with the most severe prognoses taking NBT were provided with bDMARD treatment. The costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) values were compared with reported thresholds from the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence of £20,000 to £30,000 (US$24,700 to US$37,000).

Results. In the primary analyses, the cost per QALY of a bDMARD strategy was £41,600 for patients with severe RA and £51,100 for those with moderate to severe RA. Under the supplementary analyses, the cost per QALY fell to £25,300 for those with severe RA and to £28,500 for those with moderate to severe RA.

Conclusion. The cost-effectiveness of bDMARD in RA in England is questionable and only meets current accepted levels in subsets of patients with the worst prognoses.

Key Indexing Terms:
  • RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS
  • ANTIRHEUMATIC AGENTS
  • COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
  • MEDICAL ECONOMICS

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease characterized by progressive and irreversible joint damage, impaired joint function, pain and tenderness caused by swelling of the synovial lining of joints, and is manifested with increasing disability and reduced quality of life1. RA is associated with substantial costs both directly (drug acquisition and hospitalization) and indirectly because of reduced productivity2. RA has long been reported as being associated with increased mortality3,4 particularly as a result of cardiovascular events5. A range of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) is available with proven efficacy compared with conventional DMARD (cDMARD). However, these are expensive treatments, costing around £9000 per annum (US$11,120), so that decisions based on cost-effectiveness are particularly important. In England, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) makes recommendations on the use of new and existing medicines and treatments within the National Health Service (NHS). NICE guidance restricts the use of bDMARD to patients who have failed at least 2 cDMARD and who have a Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) > 5.1. For treatment to be continued, patients need to demonstrate at least a moderate European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response by 6 months.

NICE reviewed guidance on the use of bDMARD to allow a comparison between interventions and to consider extending existing guidance to patients with less severe RA. This article reports the economic model structure, variable inputs, and estimated cost-effectiveness of sequences of bDMARD compared with no use of bDMARD undertaken by the Assessment Group. This work formed part of the evidence base used by NICE to form the guidance for Technology Appraisal 3756. The economic model differs from previously published models by other researchers in that it is based on EULAR response rather than American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses, which are not used in UK clinical practice; it used nonlinear, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score progression while taking cDMARD based on a comprehensive review and analysis of HAQ progression; it assesses the cost-effectiveness in moderate to severe and severe RA cases independently; and it allows fully incremental analyses of treatment strategies using different first-line bDMARD. This paper concentrates on the cost-effectiveness results for those patients who can tolerate methotrexate (MTX), with the results for strategies without MTX provided elsewhere7,8.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Economic model

An economic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness within England of sequences of bDMARD. The model is used to synthesize evidence from a range of sources, including clinical trials, to estimate the costs and health benefits of different treatments over patients’ lifetimes. The ratio of additional cost to additional health benefits, measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), is the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The ICER is compared with a published threshold (£20,000 to £30,000 per QALY in this instance for NICE) to help determine whether new treatments will add more to population health than will be lost from the withdrawal of other NHS services. The conceptual model is depicted in Figure 1 and took an NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. The model used an individual patient, time-to-event approach with a lifetime time horizon with both costs and benefits discounted at 3.5% per annum, in accordance with NICE recommendations9. Individual patients were sampled with characteristics resembling those in the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register (BSRBR). An outline of the methods is provided here; Stevenson, et al7 has full technical details.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Conceptual simplified schematic drawing of the modeling process. EULAR: European League Against Rheumatism; NMA: network metaanalysis; NBT: nonbiologic therapy; HAQ: Health Assessment Questionnaire; DMARD: disease-modifying antirheumatic drug; bDMARD: biological DMARD; cDMARD: conventional DMARD; BSRBR: British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register; ERAS: Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Study.

The population evaluated

Analyses were conducted separately for patients with moderate to severe RA (defined as those with a DAS28 score > 3.2 and ≤ 5.1) and for patients with severe RA (DAS28 > 5.1). Patients with prior experience of MTX were sampled using patient characteristics from the BSRBR for those receiving their first bDMARD, which allowed correlation to be maintained among the following characteristics: age, sex, disease duration, DAS28, previous DMARD, HAQ score, and weight. Details of the midpoint values and distributions are provided elsewhere7.

Strategies evaluated within the economic model

The focus of the NICE appraisal was on the cost-effectiveness of the initial bDMARD, which was 1 of adalimumab (ADA), etanercept (ETN), infliximab (IFX), certolizumab pegol (CTZ), golimumab (GOL), tocilizumab (TCZ), and abatacept (ABA). ABA was available in both subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) formulations. The remaining treatments after all first-line bDMARD were assumed to follow NICE guidance and were rituximab (RTX) + MTX, then TCZ + MTX (if TCZ + MTX was not used first-line), followed by a range of nonbiologic therapies (NBT), a term defined to encompass a selection of nonbiological treatments that clinicians may consider appropriate for individual patients, typically MTX and sulfasalazine10. All 7 bDMARD strategies were compared against each other, and with a strategy of cDMARD (MTX) followed by NBT. It was assumed that in accordance with NICE guidance, patients would have received at least 2 cDMARD before considering the use of a bDMARD11.

Efficacy of bDMARD, cDMARD, and NBT

Literature searching was performed with a cutoff date of July 2013, because the Assessment Group report was submitted to NICE in August 2013. For inclusion in the network metaanalysis (NMA), a study needed to present information on ACR and/or EULAR response between 22 and 30 weeks inclusive and needed to recruit patients with moderate to severe RA or severe RA. These studies were deemed generalizable to the patients modeled.

This article provides the results for studies conducted in patients without previous bDMARD experience: results including studies with a small proportion of bDMARD-experienced people are provided elsewhere7. An NMA, implemented within a Bayesian framework, was undertaken to synthesize both direct and indirect evidence on relative EULAR responses produced by each intervention and assuming that cDMARD could be grouped together. The analyses conducted for those with moderate to severe or severe RA were based on 16 randomized controlled trials12–20,21–29. Point estimates from the NMA for the interventions within the decision problem are shown in Figure 2. As expected, bDMARD are more efficacious than NBT. No EULAR data were available for ABA SC. Based on work undertaken by Malottki, et al30 the efficacy of RTX + MTX was set equal to that of ABA IV + MTX. It was assumed that NBT provided no EULAR response.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Proportions of patients with each EULAR response associated with each intervention. EULAR: European League Against Rheumatism; cDMARD: conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug; ABA IV: abatacept intravenous; ADA: adalimumab; CTZ: certolizumab pegol; ETN: etanercept; GOL: golimumab; IFX: infliximab; TCZ: tocilizumab; MTX: methotrexate.

The change in HAQ related to EULAR response

The change in HAQ score conditional on EULAR response was calculated using data from the BSRBR (2417 good EULAR responses and 5492 moderate EULAR responses). The average reductions in HAQ score were estimated to be 0.317 (SE 0.048) for moderate responders and 0.672 for good responders (SE 0.112).

The trajectory of HAQ while taking bDMARD or NBT

Three-year data from the BSRBR showed no evidence to challenge previous assumptions of no HAQ progression while a patient was taking a bDMARD. For those patients taking NBT, we used estimates from previous work by Norton, et al31. This work identified 4 distinct trajectories of HAQ in the Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Study (ERAS) and showed that the rate of HAQ worsening decreases over time. These analyses were re-run to incorporate covariates for patient characteristics (age, sex, disease duration, DAS28 score, and number of previous cDMARD); the results are shown in Figure 3. For each individual patient the probabilities of belonging to each trajectory were calculated, with the predicted HAQ progression being the weighted average of the 4 trajectories.

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

The trajectories used in the base case analyses for patients taking nonbiologic therapy. HAQ: Health Assessment Questionnaire.

Alternative analyses were also undertaken to evaluate the ICER if faster rates of HAQ progression were used. These analyses are described in detail in Gibson, et al32, which extended the approach of Norton, et al to assess the potential effect of patient dropout from the ERAS dataset on the 4 trajectories. We used the estimates that had the greatest rate of HAQ worsening over 15 years to illustrate a lower limit of the ICER. The HAQ trajectories for the Gibson, et al analysis are shown in Figure 4. There was a delay between the Assessment Group being submitted to NICE and the final appraisal decision because the NICE appraisal process was suspended until these additional analyses were completed. In both the base case and supplementary analyses, it was assumed that there was no further progression beyond 15 years, although a scenario was evaluated that allowed the rate of progression seen between years 12 and 15 in trajectories 3 and 4 to be continued until 40 years. While the data to inform HAQ progression were relatively dated and do not reflect current first-line cDMARD treatment, they were considered appropriate to represent NBT in a population who had received at least 2 prior cDMARD, and in the intervention strategy, bDMARD.

Figure 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 4.

The trajectories used in the supplementary analyses for patients taking nonbiologic therapy. HAQ: Health Assessment Questionnaire.

The time to discontinuation of treatment and the assumed change in HAQ score post-discontinuation

The time to discontinuation of bDMARD treatment was estimated using the BSRBR. Separate analyses were undertaken for those with a good and moderate EULAR response with the γ-distribution providing the best fit from the parametric models considered (Weibull, exponential, log-logistic, log-normal, γ, Gompertz, and Weibull frailty models). The individual patient characteristics were used as covariates.

The median time to discontinuation was 1523 days for moderate responders and 3363 days for good responders. It was assumed that the distribution of time to discontinuation was equal for all bDMARD and also that this was applicable for cDMARD. Patients were not assumed to discontinue NBT. Further details are provided in Stevenson, et al7.

For all analyses it was assumed that any reduction in HAQ score provided by the initial response would be lost (commonly referred to as a rebound effect) once treatment was stopped.

Costs associated with treatment

The costs of each bDMARD and of MTX were taken from the British National Formulary33. The cost of MTX was assumed to approximate that of NBT. Both public (CTZ and GOL) and confidential (ABA and TCZ) Patient Access Schemes (PAS) were taken into consideration. In these PAS the first 12 weeks of CTZ treatment are provided free of charge, and 100 mg of GOL is provided at the same cost as 50 mg, while ABA and TCZ are provided at a discount from the list price. Monitoring and administration costs were also included as detailed in Stevenson, et al7.

Hospitalization costs and patient utility

The hospitalization cost data used in the model, conditional on HAQ score, are shown in Table 1. These data were taken from the AbbVie company submission34 and were derived from the Norfolk Arthritis Register database for Roche35. To calculate a patient’s utility, the mixture model proposed by Hernandez-Alava, et al was used36,37, which required the pain score for each individual to be simulated from the HAQ score. This method uses a much larger sample size including patients who span the entire range of disease; other published papers use methods that have been shown to lead to biased utility estimates.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

The assumed annual hospitalization costs and the assumed hazard rate for mortality conditional on HAQ score. HR for mortality is applied to age and sex mortality rates.

Indirect costs

In line with the NICE reference case9, indirect costs such as lost productivity due to not working were not included in our analysis.

Assumptions regarding mortality

It was assumed that bDMARD treatment would not influence the rate of mortality. This assumption was based on Michaud, et al38, who concluded that changes in HAQ score did not contribute substantially to predictive values of mortality over and above the baseline values. The model assumes an increased hazard for mortality, compared with age and sex mortality rates39, associated with baseline HAQ score category. These HR are provided in Table 1.

Adverse events associated with bDMARD

A simple approach to estimating the effect of adverse events (AE) associated with bDMARD was taken. A review of AE associated with bDMARD estimated a serious infection was observed in 35 per 1000 patients (95% CI 27–46) compared with 26 per 1000 patients (no CI presented) in patients receiving placebo40. Therefore it was assumed that 9 people per 1000 would have a serious infection that was associated with a cost of £1479 per episode and a QALY loss of 0.012 as detailed in Pfizer’s submission to NICE41.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was not required in accordance with the policy of the institutions concerned.

RESULTS

Because there were only small differences in the discounted costs and discounted QALY among many of the bDMARD sequences, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio can be misleadingly volatile: accordingly, we present the average (median and mean) cost-effectiveness of the 7 bDMARD sequences compared with NBT. Unfortunately, the absolute discounted costs and QALY cannot be presented because of the risk of back calculation of commercial-in-confidence discounts. However, incremental QALY gains were between 1.5 and 2.0 and incremental costs were between £60,000 and £100,000. The ranges in the mean ICER of the individual bDMARD strategies were relatively small, spanning £39,100 to £42,200 for patients with severe RA and from £48,800 to £52,300 for patients with moderate to severe RA. The deterministic base case ICER (the median of the 7 mean ICER produced by the bDMARD strategies) for patients with severe RA is estimated to be £41,600 per QALY gained: for patients with moderate to severe RA the value is estimated to be £51,100. The mean ICER (assuming equal use of all potential first-line bDMARD and weighting the individual cost and QALY gains for the 7 strategies equally) were marginally lower, being £41,100 for patients with severe RA and £50,300 for patients with moderate to severe RA. Probabilistic results were similar to the deterministic results: the median (mean) ICER for patients with severe RA were £41,300 (£40,700) and £52,000 (£51,100) for patients with moderate to severe RA. All sensitivity analyses were run deterministically to reduce computational time required. The absolute costs and QALY gained for the TCZ first strategy differed from the remaining strategies because TCZ cannot be used after RTX, if TCZ was used as the first bDMARD.

Additional deterministic results are presented alongside the base case results in Table 2. Assuming that only those patients with fastest HAQ progression would be treated with bDMARD, the cost per QALY was reduced to below £30,000. This value is particularly important because it is a reported upper limit for cost-effectiveness by NICE for treatments that are not classed as “end of life” treatments6.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

The estimated deterministic ICER for bDMARD strategies compared with a cDMARD strategy. All numbers rounded to the nearest £100 (US$122). Data are median (mean).

DISCUSSION

The results from our primary analysis indicate that the ICER of a bDMARD strategy is in excess of £40,000 per QALY for those patients with severe RA and more than £50,000 for those patients with moderate to severe RA. Data presented elsewhere show that the values for monotherapy and for using bDMARD before cDMARD are greater than for our base case analyses7. All these values are greater than the threshold typically used by NICE for determining whether treatments should be recommended. However, there may be a number of factors that could reduce the ICER. These include the emergence of biosimilars — 2 biosimilars for IFX and 1 for ETN have already entered the UK market at prices below that of the branded equivalent; intensive treatment with cDMARD may prevent those with the least severe prognosis, in terms of HAQ increase, being provided with bDMARD as argued by clinical experts in the appraisal process; the possible reduction in the dose of bDMARD for those in low disease activity or remission as summarized by Kuijper, et al42 and Simpson, et al43; and any potential mortality benefit associated with bDMARD treatment. Factors that could increase the ICER include the possibility that second-line and third-line bDMARD treatments are less efficacious than if they were used as a first-line bDMARD; there may be HAQ increases while taking bDMARD; and the duration of treatment of people with no EULAR response (analysis of BSRBR data shows that a quarter of nonresponders had more than 4 years of treatment)7. Exploratory analyses indicate that if the price of bDMARD (excluding RTX) were reduced by 50%, the mean ICER would decline to £24,500 for patients with severe RA and £31,500 for patients with moderate to severe RA. Assuming that the efficacy of RTX and TCZ following a previous bDMARD was reduced by reallocating 10% of the patients with a good EULAR response to having no EULAR response increased the mean ICER to £41,600 and £52,100 for patients with severe RA and moderate to severe RA, respectively. Assuming that those with no EULAR response did not cease bDMARD treatment at 6 months but incurred an additional 12 months’ treatment cost increased the mean ICER to £42,200 and £51,400 for patients with severe RA and moderate to severe RA, respectively.

Limitations with this research are that it includes only studies with EULAR endpoints and that the literature search was completed in 2013; however, neither factor is expected to change the conclusions. Analyses contained in Stevenson, et al7 showed that the results were similar to those produced by EULAR data alone when all studies providing ACR data were synthesized and then mapped onto EULAR responses using data from the Veterans Affairs Rheumatoid Arthritis registry. A literature search of relevant clinical papers published since our review identified only 2 with data for the moderate to severe and the severe disease populations44,45 and it is unlikely that these will change the broad conclusion regarding the cost-effectiveness of bDMARD as a group at current market prices. MTX was costed as oral tablets rather than as an injection, which underestimates the cost of this treatment. This is unlikely to markedly affect the ICER because the use of MTX would be similar in both arms. The adopted method for generating utility estimates does not distinguish between reversible and irreversible damage within the HAQ score.

Despite the different modeling approach used within this research, it is noted that the conclusions are similar to those of Joensuu, et al46: that tumor necrosis factor inhibitors do not seem to be cost-effective at a threshold of €35,000 per QALY (US$37,360).

The supplementary analyses undertaken indicated that there may be subsets of patients in whom the use of bDMARD may be cost-effective. Currently there are no agreed algorithms for identifying those patients who will have the worst prognoses while taking NBT. Research regarding prognostic factors in patients with RA could help identify those patients who could be treated cost-effectively with bDMARD.

The estimate of the ICER for a bDMARD strategy in patients with severe and moderate to severe RA suggests that the use of bDMARD has a greater cost per QALY than published NICE thresholds. However, the bDMARD strategies assessed in this research fall within NICE’s thresholds if it is assumed that only those patients with the worst prognoses while taking NBT are treated with bDMARD.

Acknowledgment

The BSRBR is acknowledged for providing access to its data, and for expert advice on how to use it, in particular Rebecca Davies, Xuejuan Fan, Kath Watson, and Kimme Hyrich; and Sam Norton for providing data and expert analyses from the ERAS dataset.

Footnotes

  • Funding provided by the UK Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, the NIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, the HTA Programme, or the Department of Health.

  • Accepted for publication December 16, 2016.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Scott DL,
    2. Steer S
    . The course of established rheumatoid arthritis. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2007;21:943–67.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Allaire S,
    2. Wolfe F,
    3. Niu J,
    4. LaValley MP,
    5. Zhang B,
    6. Reisine S
    . Current risk factors for work disability associated with rheumatoid arthritis: recent data from a US national cohort. Arthritis Care Res 2009;61:321–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. 3.↵
    1. Naz SM,
    2. Symmons DP
    . Mortality in established rheumatoid arthritis. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2007;21:871–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Dadoun S,
    2. Zeboulon-Ktorza N,
    3. Combescure C,
    4. Elhai M,
    5. Rozenberg S,
    6. Gossec L,
    7. et al.
    Mortality in rheumatoid arthritis over the last fifty years: systematic review and meta-analysis. Joint Bone Spine 2013;80:29–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Meune C,
    2. Touzé E,
    3. Trinquart L,
    4. Allanore Y
    . Trends in cardiovascular mortality in patients with rheumatoid arthritis over 50 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Rheumatology 2009;48:1309–13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)
    . Adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, certolizumab pegol, golimumab, tocilizumab and abatacept for rheumatoid arthritis not previously treated with DMARDs or after conventional DMARDs only have failed. [Internet. Accessed December 29, 2016.] Available from: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta375
  7. 7.↵
    1. Stevenson M,
    2. Archer R,
    3. Tosh J,
    4. Simpson E,
    5. Everson-Hock E,
    6. Stevens J,
    7. et al.
    Adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, certolizumab pegol, golimumab, tocilizumab and abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis not previously treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and after the failure of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs only: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2016;20:1–610.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Stevenson M
    . Additional analyses requested post consultation. July 2015. [Internet. Accessed December 30, 2016.] Available from: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/TA375/documents/rheumatoid-arthritis-adalimumab-etanercept-infliximabcertolizumab-pegol-golimumab-abatacept-and-tocilizumab-review-id537-committee-papers2
  9. 9.↵
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
    . Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. 2013. [Internet. Accessed December 30, 2016.] Available from: www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/chapter/foreword
  10. 10.↵
    1. Brennan A,
    2. Bansback N,
    3. Nixon R,
    4. Madan J,
    5. Harrison M,
    6. Watson K,
    7. et al.
    Modelling the cost effectiveness of TNF-α antagonists in the management of rheumatoid arthritis: results from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Registry. Rheumatology 2007;46:1345–54.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. National Collaborating Centre for Chronic Conditions (UK)
    . Rheumatoid arthritis: national clinical guideline for management and treatment in adults. London: Royal College of Physicians; 2009.
  12. 12.↵
    1. Schiff M,
    2. Keiserman M,
    3. Codding C,
    4. Songcharoen S,
    5. Berman A,
    6. Nayiager S,
    7. et al.
    Efficacy and safety of abatacept or infliximab vs placebo in ATTEST: a phase III, multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate. Ann Rheum Dis 2008;67:1096–103.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.
    1. Jobanputra P,
    2. Maggs F,
    3. Deeming A,
    4. Carruthers D,
    5. Rankin E,
    6. Jordan AC,
    7. et al.
    A randomised efficacy and discontinuation study of etanercept versus adalimumab (RED SEA) for rheumatoid arthritis: a pragmatic, unblinded, non-inferiority study of first TNF inhibitor use: outcomes over 2 years. BMJ Open 2012;2:e001395.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.
    1. Gabay C,
    2. Emery P,
    3. van Vollenhoven R,
    4. Dikranian A,
    5. Alten R,
    6. Pavelka K,
    7. et al.
    Tocilizumab monotherapy versus adalimumab monotherapy for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (ADACTA): a randomised, double-blind, controlled phase 4 trial. Lancet 2013;381:1541–50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.
    1. van Vollenhoven RF,
    2. Kinnman N,
    3. Vincent E,
    4. Wax S,
    5. Bathon J
    . Atacicept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate: results of a phase II, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 2011;63:1782–92.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.
    1. van de Putte LB,
    2. Atkins C,
    3. Malaise M,
    4. Sany J,
    5. Russell AS,
    6. van Riel PL,
    7. et al.
    Efficacy and safety of adalimumab as monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis for whom previous disease modifying antirheumatic drug treatment has failed. Ann Rheum Dis 2004;63:508–16.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.
    1. van Riel PL,
    2. Taggart AJ,
    3. Sany J,
    4. Gaubitz M,
    5. Nab HW,
    6. Pedersen R,
    7. et al.
    Efficacy and safety of combination etanercept and methotrexate versus etanercept alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with an inadequate response to methotrexate: the ADORE study. Ann Rheum Dis 2006;65:1478–83.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.
    1. Kameda H,
    2. Kanbe K,
    3. Sato E,
    4. Ueki Y,
    5. Saito K,
    6. Nagaoka S,
    7. et al.
    Continuation of methotrexate resulted in better clinical and radiographic outcomes than discontinuation upon starting etanercept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: 52-week results from the JESMR study. J Rheumatol 2011;38:1585–92.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.
    1. Machado D,
    2. Guzman R,
    3. Xavier R,
    4. Simon J,
    5. Ferdousi T,
    6. Pedersen R,
    7. et al.
    Combination etanercept and methotrexate therapy provides better outcomes than standard DMARD and methotrexate therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: results from a study in the Latin America region. Presented at XVII Congress of Pan American League of Associations of Rheumatology (PANLAR); Punta Cana, Dominican Republic; 17–21 April 2012.
  20. 20.↵
    1. Kim H-Y,
    2. Hsu P-N,
    3. Barba M,
    4. Sulaiman W,
    5. Robertson D,
    6. Vlahos B,
    7. et al.
    Randomised comparison of etanercept with usual therapy in an Asian population with active rheumatoid arthritis: the APPEAL trial. Int J Rheum Dis 2012;15:188–96.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Tanaka Y,
    2. Harigai M,
    3. Takeuchi T,
    4. Yamanaka H,
    5. Ishiguro N,
    6. Yamamoto K,
    7. et al.
    Golimumab in combination with methotrexate in Japanese patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: results of the GO-FORTH study. Ann Rheum Dis 2012;71:817–24.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.
    1. Keystone E,
    2. Genovese MC,
    3. Klareskog L,
    4. Hsia EC,
    5. Hall S,
    6. Miranda PC,
    7. et al.
    Golimumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy: 52-week results of the GO-FORWARD study. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:1129–35.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.
    1. Kavanaugh A,
    2. Fleischmann RM,
    3. Emery P,
    4. Kupper H,
    5. Redden L,
    6. Guerette B,
    7. et al.
    Clinical, functional and radiographic consequences of achieving stable low disease activity and remission with adalimumab plus methotrexate or methotrexate alone in early rheumatoid arthritis: 26-week results from the randomised, controlled OPTIMA study. Ann Rheum Dis 2013;72:64–71.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.
    1. Breedveld FC,
    2. Weisman MH,
    3. Kavanaugh AF,
    4. Cohen SB,
    5. Pavelka K,
    6. van Vollenhoven R,
    7. et al.
    The PREMIER study: a multicenter, randomised, double-blind clinical trial of combination therapy with adalimumab plus methotrexate versus methotrexate alone or adalimumab alone in patients with early, aggressive rheumatoid arthritis who had not had previous methotrexate treatment. Arthritis Rheum 2006;54:26–37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.
    1. Dougados M,
    2. Kissel K,
    3. Sheeran T,
    4. Tak PP,
    5. Conaghan PG,
    6. Mola EM,
    7. et al.
    Adding tocilizumab or switching to tocilizumab monotherapy in methotrexate inadequate responders: 24-week symptomatic and structural results of a 2-year randomised controlled strategy trial in rheumatoid arthritis (ACT-RAY). Ann Rheum Dis 2013;72:43–50.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.
    1. Nishimoto N,
    2. Yoshizaki K,
    3. Miyasaka N,
    4. Yamamoto K,
    5. Kawai S,
    6. Takeuchi T,
    7. et al.
    Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with humanised anti-interleukin-6 receptor antibody: a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 2004;50:1761–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.
    1. Nishimoto N,
    2. Miyasaka N,
    3. Yamamoto K,
    4. Kawai S,
    5. Takeuchi T,
    6. Azuma J,
    7. et al.
    Study of active controlled tocilizumab monotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate (SATORI): significant reduction in disease activity and serum vascular endothelial growth factor by IL-6 receptor inhibition therapy. Mod Rheumatol 2009;19:12–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.
    1. Genovese MC,
    2. McKay JD,
    3. Nasonov EL,
    4. Mysler EF,
    5. da Silva NA,
    6. Alecock E,
    7. et al.
    Interleukin-6 receptor inhibition with tocilizumab reduces disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis with inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: the tocilizumab in combination with traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy study. Arthritis Rheum 2008;58:2968–80.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Scott DL,
    2. Ibrahim F,
    3. Farewell V,
    4. O’Keeffe AG,
    5. Ma M,
    6. Walker D,
    7. et al.
    Randomised controlled trial of tumour necrosis factor inhibitors against combination intensive therapy with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in established rheumatoid arthritis: the TACIT trial and associated systematic reviews. Health Technol Assess 2014;18(66):i–xxiv.
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.↵
    1. Malottki K,
    2. Barton P,
    3. Tsourapas A,
    4. Uthman AO,
    5. Liu Z,
    6. Routh K,
    7. et al.
    Adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab and abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis after the failure of a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2011;15:1–278.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Norton S,
    2. Sacker A,
    3. Dixey D,
    4. Done J,
    5. Williams P,
    6. Young A
    . Trajectories of functional limitation in early rheumatoid arthritis and their association with mortality. Rheumatology 2013;52:2016–24.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Gibson L,
    2. Hernandez Alava M,
    3. Wailoo A
    . Progression of disease in people with rheumatoid arthritis treated with non biologic therapies. [Internet. Accessed December 30, 2016.] Available from: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/TA375/documents/rheumatoid-arthritis-adalimumab-etanercept-infliximab-certolizumab-pegol-golimumab-abatacept-and-tocilizumab-review-id537-committee-papers-appendices-13192
  33. 33.↵
    1. Joint Formulary Committee
    . British National Formulary. [Internet. Accessed December 30, 2016.] Available from: www.medicinescomplete.com/mc/bnf/current/index.htm
  34. 34.↵
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
    . Adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, certolizumab pegol, golimumab, tocilizumab and abatacept for rheumatoid arthritis not previously treated with DMARDs or after conventional DMARDs only have failed. Submission by AbbVie. 2013.
  35. 35.↵
    1. Wiles NJ,
    2. Cooper N,
    3. Symmons D
    . Resource use within the Norfolk Arthritis Register (NOAR) Cohort during the first five years of disease: report for Roche (NICE data on file). London: NICE; 2005.
  36. 36.↵
    1. Hernandez-Alava M,
    2. Wailoo A,
    3. Wolfe F,
    4. Michaud K
    . The relationship between EQ-5D, HAQ and pain in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology 2013;52:944–50.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. 37.↵
    1. Hernandez-Alava M,
    2. Wailoo A,
    3. Wolfe F,
    4. Michaud K
    . A comparison of direct and indirect methods for the estimation of health utilities from clinical outcomes. Med Decis Making 2013;34:919–30.
    OpenUrl
  38. 38.↵
    1. Michaud K,
    2. Vera-Llonch M,
    3. Oster G
    . Mortality risk by functional status and health-related quality of life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2012;39:54–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. 39.↵
    Office for National Statistics. Interim Life Tables: 2008–2010. [Internet. Accessed December 30, 2016.] www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lifetables/interim-life-tables/2008-2010/index.html
  40. 40.↵
    1. Singh JA,
    2. Wells GA,
    3. Christensen R,
    4. Tanjong GE,
    5. Maxwell L,
    6. Macdonald JK,
    7. et al.
    Adverse effects of biologics: a network meta-analysis and Cochrane overview. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;2:CD008794.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
    . Etanercept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. (Review of TA Guidance 130,186, 224, 234 and Part Review of TA Guidance 225 and 247). Multiple Technology Appraisal (MTA). Pfizer submission to NICE. 2013.
  42. 42.↵
    1. Kuijper TM,
    2. Lamers-Karnebeek FB,
    3. Jacobs JW,
    4. Hazes JM,
    5. Luime JJ
    . Flare rate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in low disease activity or remission when tapering or stopping synthetic or biologic DMARD: a systematic review. J Rheumatol 2015;42:2012–22.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. 43.↵
    1. Simpson EL,
    2. Hock ES,
    3. Stevenson MD,
    4. Wong R,
    5. Dracup N,
    6. Wailoo A,
    7. et al.
    What is the added value of ultrasound joint examination for monitoring synovitis in rheumatoid arthritis and can it be used to guide treatment decisions? A systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess (in press).
  44. 44.↵
    1. Takeuchi T,
    2. Miyasaka N,
    3. Zang C,
    4. Alvarez D,
    5. Fletcher T,
    6. Wajdula J,
    7. et al.
    A phase 3 randomized, double-blind, multicentre comparative study evaluating the effect of etanercept versus methotrexate on radiographic outcomes, disease activity, and safety in Japanese subjects with active rheumatoid arthritis. Mod Rheumatol 2013;23:623–33.
    OpenUrl
  45. 45.↵
    1. Takeuchi T,
    2. Kaneko Y,
    3. Atsumi T,
    4. Tanaka Y,
    5. Inoh M,
    6. Kobayashi H,
    7. et al.
    Adding tocilizumab or switching to tocilizumab monotherapy in RA patients with inadequate response to methotrexate: 24 week results from a randomized controlled study (SURPRISE study). Ann Rheum Dis 2013;72 Suppl 3:62.
    OpenUrl
  46. 46.↵
    1. Joensuu JT,
    2. Huoponen S,
    3. Aaltonen KJ,
    4. Konttinen YT,
    5. Nordström D,
    6. Blom M
    . The cost-effectiveness of biologics for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review. PLoS One 2015;10:e0119683.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Rheumatology
Vol. 44, Issue 7
1 Jul 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by Author
  • Editorial Board (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about The Journal of Rheumatology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The Cost-effectiveness of Sequences of Biological Disease-modifying Antirheumatic Drug Treatment in England for Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Can Tolerate Methotrexate
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from The Journal of Rheumatology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the The Journal of Rheumatology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
The Cost-effectiveness of Sequences of Biological Disease-modifying Antirheumatic Drug Treatment in England for Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Can Tolerate Methotrexate
Matt D. Stevenson, Allan J. Wailoo, Jonathan C. Tosh, Monica Hernandez-Alava, Laura A. Gibson, John W. Stevens, Rachel J. Archer, Emma L. Simpson, Emma S. Hock, Adam Young, David L. Scott
The Journal of Rheumatology Jul 2017, 44 (7) 973-980; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.160941

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

 Request Permissions

Share
The Cost-effectiveness of Sequences of Biological Disease-modifying Antirheumatic Drug Treatment in England for Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Can Tolerate Methotrexate
Matt D. Stevenson, Allan J. Wailoo, Jonathan C. Tosh, Monica Hernandez-Alava, Laura A. Gibson, John W. Stevens, Rachel J. Archer, Emma L. Simpson, Emma S. Hock, Adam Young, David L. Scott
The Journal of Rheumatology Jul 2017, 44 (7) 973-980; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.160941
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgment
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
  • eLetters

Keywords

RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS
ANTIRHEUMATIC AGENTS
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
MEDICAL ECONOMICS

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Risk Factors for Dementia in Patients With Incident Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Population-Based Cohort Study
  • Can Patients With Controlled Rheumatoid Arthritis Taper Methotrexate From Targeted Therapy and Sustain Remission? A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis
  • Physical Activity Associates With Lower Systemic Inflammatory Gene Expression in Rheumatoid Arthritis
Show more Rheumatoid Arthritis

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • rheumatoid arthritis
  • antirheumatic agents
  • COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
  • MEDICAL ECONOMICS

Content

  • First Release
  • Current
  • Archives
  • Collections
  • Audiovisual Rheum
  • COVID-19 and Rheumatology

Resources

  • Guide for Authors
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Author Payment
  • Reviewers
  • Advertisers
  • Classified Ads
  • Reprints and Translations
  • Permissions
  • Meetings
  • FAQ
  • Policies

Subscribers

  • Subscription Information
  • Purchase Subscription
  • Your Account
  • Terms and Conditions

More

  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • My Alerts
  • My Folders
  • Privacy/GDPR Policy
  • RSS Feeds
The Journal of Rheumatology
The content of this site is intended for health care professionals.
Copyright © 2022 by The Journal of Rheumatology Publishing Co. Ltd.
Print ISSN: 0315-162X; Online ISSN: 1499-2752
Powered by HighWire