Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Overview of Economic Evaluations for Drugs Used in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Focus on Tumour Necrosis Factor-α Antagonists

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Drugs Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, progressive, inflammatory disease that affects approximately 0.5–1% of the adult population. The introduction of new disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) such as leflunomide, anakinra and the tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α antagonists (infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab) have transformed the management of RA. In particular, the last class of agents has generated substantial controversy. Costing between $US16 000 and $US20 000 per patient-year (2001 values), the potential greater efficacy of treatment with TNFα antagonists comes at much higher drug costs, making these agents natural candidates for cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs).

A MEDLINE search (until 31 January 2004) identified six original CEAs evaluating TNFα antagonists in RA. The aim of a CEA is to facilitate the allocation of scarce health resources and to inform policy decisions. However, to enhance the reliability and relevance of these analyses to policy makers, there must be similarity between the methodologies used. Recently, the OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials) group produced a document to define such a reference case; the OMERACT document was used as a foundation to structure comparisons and highlight discrepancies.

The methodologies employed in each analysis differed; in particular, disparate time horizons, comparators, quantities of drug and treatment sequences prohibit the comparison of cost effectiveness between studies. Outcomes also differed between the analyses. Most reported health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The QALYs metric was based on preference scores that were typically derived from linear regressions using the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). However, models also used American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria, as well as the disease activity score (DAS). Common to all studies was the lack of data from long-term randomised studies where efficacy and resource consumption in comparison with standard care has been investigated. As such, investigators combined short-term randomised control trial data with that of a long-term observational cohort, and modelled cost effectiveness over an appropriate time horizon. In addition, most analyses lacked rigorous sensitivity analysis to examine the impact of uncertainty in the parameters.

Those analyses that examined time horizons of 6 months and 1 year published incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of $US34 800 per ACR 70% response criteria (ACR70) weighted response (duration 6 months, 1999 values) and $US96 166 (duration 1 year, 2002 values). Analyses that modelled costs and health outcomes beyond the first year reported ICER estimates ranging between $US26 800 (patients’ lifetime, 1998 values) and $US40 308 (10 years, 2002 values). In terms of HR-QOL, the analyses reported incremental QALYs that ranged from 0.116 (over 19 years) to 1.6 (over 10 years). Discounted costs of therapy ranged from $US30 362 (10 years, 2002 values) to $US93 000 (22 years, 1998 values), and comparator costs ranged from $US22 593 (10 years, 2002 values) to $US84 000 (22 years, 1998 values).

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.

Table I
Table II
Fig. 1
Table III
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kremer JM. Rational use of new and existing disease-modifying agents in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Intern Med 2001; 134: 695–706

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Lovinger SP. Use of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis tempered by concerns over safety, cost. JAMA 2003; 289: 3229–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Michaud K, Messer J, Choi HK, et al. Direct medical costs and their predictors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a three-year study of 7527 patients. Arthritis Rheum 2003; 48: 2750–62

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jobanputra P, Barton P, Bryan S, et al. The effectiveness of infliximab and etanercept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2002; 6(21): 1–110

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Choi HK, Seeger JD, Kuntz KM. A cost effectiveness analysis of treatment options for patients with methotrexate-resistant rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2002; 43: 2316–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wong JB, Singh G, Kavanaugh A. Estimating the cost-effectiveness of 54 weeks of infliximab for rheumatoid arthritis. Am J Med 2002; 113: 400–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kobelt G, Jonsson L, Young A, et al. The cost-effectiveness of infliximab (Remicade®) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in Sweden and the United Kingdom based on the ATTRACT study. Rheumatology 2003; 42: 326–35

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 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: 4–10

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Brennan A, Bansback NJ, Reynolds A, et al. Modelling the cost-effectiveness of etanercept in adults with rheumatoid arthritis in the UK. Rheumatology 2004; 43: 62–72

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Maetzel A, Tugwell P, Boers M, et al., on behalf of the OMER-ACT 6 Economics Research group. Economic evaluation of programs or interventions in the management of rheumatoid arthritis: defining a reference case. J Rheumatol 2003; 30: 891–6

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Maetzel A, Ferraz MB, Bombardier C. A review of cost-effectiveness analyses in rheumatology and related disciplines. Curr Opin Rheumatol 1998; 10: 136–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. The Arthritis Society [online]. Available from URL: http://www.arthritis.ca [Accessed 2004 Jan 5]

  13. Doran MF, Pond GR, Crowson CS, et al. Trends in the incidence and mortality of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2002; 46: 625–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. American College of Rheumatology Subcommittee on Rheumatoid Arthritis Guidelines. Guidelines for the management of rheumatoid arthritis 2002 update. Arthritis Rheum 2002; 46: 328–46

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Yelin E, Callahan LF, for the National Arthritis Data Work Group. The economic cost and social psychological impact of musculoskeletal conditions. Arthritis Rheum 1995; 38: 1351–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Pincus T, Callahan LF. The ‘side effects’ of rheumatoid arthritis: joint destruction, disability, and early mortality. Br J Rheumatol 1993; 32 Suppl. 1: 28–37

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gabriel SE, Crowson CS, Kremers HM, et al. Survival in rheumatoid arthritis: a population-based analysis of trends over 40 years. Arthritis Rheum 2003; 48: 54–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wolfe F, Michaud K, Gefeller O, et al. Predicting mortality in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2003; 48: 1530–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wong JB, Ramey DR, Singh G. Long-term morbidity, mortality, and economics of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2001; 44: 2746–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Choi HK, Hernan MA, Seeger SD, et al. Methotrexate and mortality in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a prospective study. Lancet 2002; 359: 1173–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Mutru O, Laasko M, Isomaki H, et al. Cardiovascular mortality in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Cardiology 1989; 76: 71–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Doran MF, Crowson CS, Pond GR, et al. Frequency of infection in patients with rheumatoid arthritis compared with controls: a population-based stud. Arthritis Rheum 2002; 46: 2287–93

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Cibere J, Sibley J, Haga M. Rheumatoid arthritis and the risk of malignancy. Arthritis Rheum 1997; 40: 1580–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Felson DT, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Use of short-term efficacy/toxicity tradeoffs to select second-line drugs in rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis of published clinical trials. Arthritis Rheum 1992; 35: 1117–25

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Galindo-Rodriguez G, Avina-Zubieta JA, Russell AS, et al. Disappointing longterm results with disease modifying antirheumatic drugs: a practice based study. J Rheumatol 1999; 26: 2337–43

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Moreland LW, Baumgartner SW, Schiff MH, et al. Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with a recombinant human tumor necrosis factor receptor (p75)-Fc fusion protein. N Engl J Med 1997; 337(3): 141–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Maini R, St Clair EW, Breedveld F, et al. Infliximab (chimeric anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha monoclonal antibody) versus placebo in rheumatoid arthritis patients receiving concomitant methotrexate: a randomised phase III trial. ATTRACT Study Group. Lancet 1999; 354: 1932–9

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Bresnihan B, Alvaro-Gracia JM, Cobby M, et al. Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with recombinant human interleukin-1 receptor antagonist. Arthritis Rheum 1998; 41(12): 2196–204

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Weinblatt ME, Keystone EC, Furst DE, et al. Adalimumab, a fully human anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha monoclonal antibody, for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in patients taking concomitant methotrexate: the ARMADA trial. Arthritis Rheum 2003; 48(1): 35–45

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Nahar IK, Shojania K, Marra CA, et al. Infliximab treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and Crohn’s disease. Ann Pharmacother 2003; 37: 1256–65

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Humira® (adalimumab) prescribing information [online]. Available from URL: http://www.rxabbott.com/pdf/humira.pdf [Accessed 2004 Feb 12]

  32. Bendtsen P, Akerlind I, Hornquist JO. Assessment of quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis: methods and implications. Pharmacoeconomics 1994; 5: 286–98

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Nichol MB, Harada ASM. Measuring the effects of medication use on health-related quality of life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a review. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 16: 433–48

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Dominick KL, Ahern FM, Gold CH, et al. Health-related quality of life among older adults with arthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2004; 2(1): 5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Neville C, Whalley D, Mckenna S, et al. Adaptation and validation of the rheumatoid arthritis quality of life scale for use in Canada. J Rheumatol 2001; 28: 1505–10

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. de Jong Z, vand der Heijde D, Mckenna SP, et al. The reliability and construct validity of the RAQoL: a rheumatoid arthritis-specific quality of life instrument. Br J Rheumatol 1997; 36: 878–83

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Hurst N, Kind P, Ruta D, et al. Measuring health-related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis: validity, responsiveness, and reliability of EuroQol (EQ-5D). Br J Rheumatol 1997; 36: 551–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Marra CA, Woolcott JC, Kopec JA, et al. A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUB, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Soc Sci Med 2005; 60(7): 1571–82

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Callahan LF. The burden of rheumatoid arthritis: facts and figures. J Rheumatol Suppl 1998; 53: 8–12

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Maetzel A, Strand V, Tugwell P, et al. Cost-effectiveness of adding leflunomide to a 5-year strategy of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2002; 47: 655–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Cooper NJ. Economic burden of rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review. Rheumatology 2000; 39: 28–33

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Lubeck DP. A review of the direct costs of rheumatoid arthritis: managed care versus fee-for-service settings. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19: 811–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Pugner KM, Scott DI, Holmes JW, et al. The costs of rheumatoid arthritis: an international, long-term view. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2000; 29: 305–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Yelin E, Trupin L, Katz P, et al. Association between etanercept use and employment outcomes among patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2003; 48: 3046–54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  46. Wolfe F, Fries JF. ARAMIS today: moving toward internationally distributed databank systems for follow-up studies. Clin Rheumatol 1987; 6 Suppl. 2: 93–102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Young A, Wilkinson P, Talamo J, et al. Socioeconomic deprivation and rheumatoid disease: what lessons for the health service? Ann Rheum Dis 2000; 59: 194–9

    Google Scholar 

  48. Young A, Dixey J, Cox N, et al. How does functional disability in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) affect patients from the Early RA Study. Rheumatology 2000; 38: 603–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Tugwell P, Pincus T, Yocum D, et al. Combination therapy with cyclosporine and MTX in severe rheumatoid arthritis: the MTX-Cyclosporine Combination Study Group. N Engl J Med 1995; 333: 137–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. O’Dell JR, Haire C, Erikson N, et al. Efficacy of triple DMARD therapy in patients with RA with suboptimal response to MTX. J Rheumatol Suppl 1996; 44: 72–4

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Crnkic M, Teleman A, Saxne T, et al. Survival on drug as a tool for evaluation of drug tolerability: initial experience in southern Sweden of infliximab, etanercept and leflunomide in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology 2001; 40 Suppl. 1: 82–3

    Google Scholar 

  52. Maetzel A, Wong W, Strand V, et al. Meta-analysis of treatment termination rates among rheumatoid arthritis patients receiving disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. Rheumatology 2000; 39: 975–81

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Hawley D, Wolfe F. Are the results of controlled clinical trials and observational studies of second line therapy in rheumatoid arthritis valid and generalisable as measures of rheumatoid arthritis outcome. J Rheumatol 1991; 18: 1008–14

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Lynch N, Robinson E. Cyclosporin use in inflammatory arthritis: a 2-year prospective national audit. Arthritis Rheum 2000; 43 Suppl.: S344

    Google Scholar 

  55. Gerards A, Landewe R, Prins A, et al. Combination therapy with cyclosporin A and methotrexate in patients with early aggressive rheumatoid arthritis, a randomised double blind placebo controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 2000; 43 Suppl.: S382

    Google Scholar 

  56. Pincus T, Marcum S, Callahan L. Long-term drug therapy for rheumatoid arthritis in seven rheumatology private practices. II: second line drugs and prednisolone. J Rheumatol 1992; 19: 1885–94

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Eberhardt K, Rydgren L, Petersson H, et al. Early rheumatoid arthritis: onset, course and prognosis over 2 years. Scand J Rheumatol 1990; 17: 253–71

    Google Scholar 

  58. Eberhardt K, Fex E. Functional impairment and disability in early rheumatoid arthritis: development over 5 years. J Rhemuatol 1995; 22: 1324–9

    Google Scholar 

  59. Eberhardt K, Fex K. Clinical course and remission rate in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: relationship to outcome after 5 years. Br J Rheumatol 1998; 37: 1324–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Lindqvist E, Saxne T, Geborek P, et al. Ten-year patients: health status, disease process and damage. Ann Rheum Dis 2002; 61: 1055–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Geborek P, Crnkic M, Petersson IF, et al. Etanercept, infliximab, and leflunomide in established rheumatoid arthritis: clinical experience using a structured follow up programme in southern Sweden. South Swedish Arthritis Treatment Group. Ann Rheum Dis 2002; 61: 793–8

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Hunink MG, Bult JR, de Vries J, et al. Uncertainty in decision models analyzing cost-effectiveness: the joint distribution of incremental costs and effectiveness evaluated with a nonpara-metric bootstrap method. Med Decis Making 1998; 18: 337–46

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. New Treatments in arthritis: the use of TNF-α blockers in adults with rheumatoid arthritis. Report of a working party of the British Society for Rheumatology [online]. Available from URL: http://www.msecportal.org/portal/editorial/publicpages/bsr/536883013/l.doc [Accessed 2001 Apr 2]

  64. van der Heijde DM, van’t Hof M, van Riel PL, et al. Development of a disease activity score based on judgment in clinical practice by rheumatologists. J Rheumatol 1993; 20: 579–81

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Felson DT, Anderson JJ, Boers M, et al. American College of Rheumatology preliminary definition of improvement in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1995; 38: 727–35

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Neumann PJ, Goldie SJ, Weinstein MC. Preference-based measures in economic evaluation in health care. Annu Rev Public Health 2000; 21: 587–611

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Dolan P. The measurement of health-related quality of life for use in resource allocation decisions in health care. In: Culyer AJ, Newhouse JP, editors. Handbook of health economics. London: Elsevier Science, 2000: 1723–60

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  68. Tengs TO, Wallace A. One thousand health-related quality of life estimates. Med Care 2000; 38: 583–637

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for economic evaluation of Pharmaceuticals. 2nd ed. Ottawa: The Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA), 1997

  70. Kopec JA, Willison KD. A comparative review of four preference-weighted measures of health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 2003; 56: 317–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Day NA. A comparison of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments. Ann Med 2001; 33: 358–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Russell AS, Conner-Spady B, Mintz A, et al. The responsiveness of generic health status measures as assessed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving infliximab. J Rheumatol 2003; 30: 941–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Maetzel A, Strand V, Tugwell P, et al. Cost-effectiveness of adding leflunomide to a 5-year strategy of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2002; 15: 655–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Verhoeven AC, Boers M, van Der Linden S. Responsiveness of the core set, response criteria, and utilities in early rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2000; 59: 966–74

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Tijhuis GJ, Jansen SJ, Stiggelbout AM, et al. Value of the time trade off method for measuring utilities in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2000; 59: 892–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Salaffi F, Stancati A, Carotti M. Responsiveness of health status measures and utility-based methods in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Rheumatol 2002; 21: 478–87

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Conner-Spady B, Suarez-Almazor ME. Variation in the estimation of quality adjusted life-years by different preference-based instruments. Med Care 2003; 41: 791–801

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Luo N, Chew LH, Fong KY, et al. A comparison of the EuroQol-5D and the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 in patients with rheumatic diseases. J Rheumatol 2003; 30: 2268–74

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Suarez-Almazor ME, Conner-Spady B. Rating of arthritis health states by patients, physicians, and the general public. Implications for cost-utility analyses. J Rheumatol 2001; 28: 648–55

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Bruce B, Fries J. The Stanford health assessment questionnaire (HAQ): a review of its history, issues, progress, and documentation. J Rheumatol 2003; 30: 167–78

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Sokka T, Pincus T. Eligibility of patients in routine care for major clinical trials of anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha agents in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2003; 48: 313–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Furst DE, Keystone EC, Breedveld FC, et al. Updated consensus statement on tumour necrosis factor blocking agents for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and other rheumatic diseases (April 2001). Ann Rheum Dis 2001; 60 Suppl. 3: iii2–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Woodworth TG, Furst DE, Strand V, et al. Standardizing assessment of adverse effects in rheumatology clinical trials. Status of OMERACT Toxicity Working Group March 2000: towards a common understanding of comparative toxicity/safety profiles for antirheumatic therapies. J Rheumatol 2001; 28: 1163–9

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Navarro-Cano G, Del Rincon I, Progosian S, et al. Association of mortality with disease severity in rheumatoid arthritis, independent of comorbidity. Arthritis Rheum 2003 Sep; 48(9): 2425–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Wolfe F, Kleinheksel SM, Cathey MA, et al. The clinical value of the Stanford health assessment questionnaire functional disability index in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 1998; 15: 1480–8

    Google Scholar 

  86. Yelin E, Trupin L, Wong B, et al. The impact of functional status and change in functional status on mortality over 18 years among person with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2003; 29: 1851–7

    Google Scholar 

  87. Anderson JA, Wells G, Verhoeven AC, et al. Factors predicting response to treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: the importance of disease duration. Arthritis Rheum 2000; 43: 22–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Jobanputra P, Wilson J, Douglas K, et al. A survey of British rheumatologists’ DMARD preferences for rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology 2004; 43: 206–10

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Wolfe F, Michaud K, Pincus T. Do rheumatology cost-effectiveness analyses make sense? Rheumatology 2004; 43: 4–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Brennan A, Bansback N. Re: Wolfe, et al. Do rheumatology cost-effectiveness analyses make sense? Rheumatology (Oxford) 2004 May; 43(5): 677–8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Fry RN, Avey SG, Sullivan SD. The academy of managed care pharmacy format for formulary submissions: an evolving standard: a foundation for managed care pharmacy task force report. Value Health 2003; 6: 505–21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance on the use of etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/pdf/RA-PDF.pdf [Accessed 2002 Mar 22]

  93. Spector R, Park GD. Regression to the mean: a potential source of error in clinical pharmacological studies. Drug Intell Clin Pharm 1985; 19: 916–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. Lesaffre E, Kocmanova D, Lemos PA, et al. A retrospective analysis of the effect of noncompliance on time to first major adverse cardiac event in LIPS. Clin Ther 2003; 25: 2431–47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Coyle D, Buxton MJ, O’Brien BJ. Stratified cost-effectiveness analysis: a framework for establishing efficient limited use criteria. Health Econ 2003; 12: 421–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Hoch JS, Briggs AH, Willan AR. Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue: framework for the marriage of health econometric and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ 2002; 11(5): 415–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russel LB, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  98. Mushkin S, Collings F. Cost of disease and illness in the United States in the year 2000. Public Health Rep 1978; 93(5): 493–588

    Google Scholar 

  99. Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF, van Invevel BM, et al. The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease. J Health Econ 1995; 14: 171–89

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. Brouwer WB, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF. Productivity costs measurement through quality of life? A response to the recommendation of the Washingon Panel. Health Econ 1997; 6: 253–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Garber AM, et al. Productivity costs, time costs and health-related quality of life: a response to the Erasmus group. Health Econ 1997; 6: 505–10

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Obstfeld M, Rogoff K. Foundations of international macroeconomics. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  103. Stone CE. The lifetime economic costs of rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 1984; 11: 819–27

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. Meenan RF, Yelin EH, Henke CJ, et al. The costs of rheumatoid arthritis: a patient-oriented study of chronic disease costs. Arthritis Rheum 1978; 21: 827–33

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  105. Liang MH, Larson M, Thompson M, et al. Costs and outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1984; 27: 522–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  106. Jonsson B, Rehnberg C, Borgquist L, et al. Locomotion status and costs in destructive rheumatoid arthritis: a comprehensive study of 82 patients from a population of 13, 000. Acta Orthop Scand 1992; 63: 207–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  107. Yelin E, Wanke LA. An assessment of the annual and long-term direct costs of rheumatoid arthritis: the impact of poor function and functional decline. Arthritis Rheum 1999; 42: 1209–18

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  108. Kobelt G, Eberhardt K, Jonsson L, et al. Economic consequences of the progression of rheumatoid arthritis in Sweden. Arthritis Rheum 1999; 42: 347–74

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  109. Lajas C, Abasolo L, Bellajdel B, et al. Costs and predictors of costs in rheumatoid arthritis: a prevalence-based study. Arthritis Rheum 2003; 49(1): 64–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors received no additional sources of funding for the publication of this manuscript. There are no potential conflicts of interest. Carlo Marra is funded by a Canadian Arthritis Network Scholar Aware. Dean Regier is funded by the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Health Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

    Nick J. Bansback, Roberta Ara & Alan Brennan

  2. Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St Paul’s Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

    Nick J. Bansback

  3. Health Economics Program, Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

    Dean A. Regier &  Carlo A. Marra

  4. Division of Rheumatology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

    Kamran Shojania & John M. Esdaile

  5. Department of Health Care and Epidemiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

    Aslam H. Anis

  6. Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

    Carlo A. Marra

Authors
  1. Nick J. Bansback
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dean A. Regier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Roberta Ara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alan Brennan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kamran Shojania
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. John M. Esdaile
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Aslam H. Anis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Carlo A. Marra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carlo A. Marra.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bansback, N.J., Regier, D.A., Ara, R. et al. An Overview of Economic Evaluations for Drugs Used in Rheumatoid Arthritis. Drugs 65, 473–496 (2005). https://doi.org/10.2165/00003495-200565040-00004

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00003495-200565040-00004

Keywords

Search

Navigation