6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment sequences containing tofacitinib for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in Spain

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To assess the cost-effectiveness of tofacitinib-containing treatment sequences versus sequences containing only standard biological therapies in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after the failure of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD-IR population) and in patients previously treated with methotrexate (MTX) who show an inadequate response to second-line therapy with any tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi-IR population).

          Methods

          A patient-level microsimulation model estimated, from the perspective of the Spanish Public NHS, lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) for treatment sequences starting with tofacitinib (5 mg twice daily) followed by biological therapies versus sequences of biological treatments only. Concomitant treatment with MTX was considered. Model’s parameters comprised demographic and clinical inputs (initial Health Assessment Questionnaire [HAQ] score and clinical response to short- and long-term treatment). Efficacy was measured by means of HAQ score changes using mixed treatment comparisons and data from long-term extension (LTE) trials. Serious adverse events (SAEs) data were derived from the literature. Total cost estimation (€, 2018) included drug acquisition, parenteral administration, disease progression and SAE management.

          Results

          In the csDMARD-IR population, sequences starting with tofacitinib proved dominant options (more QALYs and lower costs) versus the corresponding sequences without tofacitinib. In the TNFi-IR population, first-line treatment with tofacitinib+MTX followed by scAbatacept+MTX➔rituximab+MTX➔certolizumab+MTX proved dominant versus scTocilizumab+MTX➔scAbatacept+MTX➔rituximab+MTX➔certolizumab+MTX; and tofacitinib+MTX➔scTocilizumab+MTX➔scAbatacept+MTX➔rituximab+MTX versus scTocilizumab+MTX➔scAbatacept+MTX➔rituximab+MTX➔certolizumab+MTX was less effective but remained a cost-saving option.

          Conclusions

          Inclusion of tofacitinib seems a dominant strategy in moderate-to-severe RA patients after csDMARDs failure. Tofacitinib, as initial third-line therapy, proved a cost-saving strategy (€− 337,489/QALY foregone) in moderate-to-severe TNFi-IR RA patients.

          Key points

          • Therapeutical approach in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) consisted in sequences of several therapies during patient lifetime.

          • Treatment sequences initiating with tofacitinib followed by biological drugs provided higher health effects in csDMARDs-IR population, compared with sequences containing only biological drugs.

          • In both csDMARD-IR and TNFi-IR RA populations, initiating treatment with tofacitinib was associated to lower treatment costs for the Spanish National Health System.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Therapeutic effect of the combination of etanercept and methotrexate compared with each treatment alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: double-blind randomised controlled trial.

          Etanercept and methotrexate are effective in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis but no data exist on concurrent initiation or use of the combination compared with either drug alone. We aimed to assess combination treatment with etanercept and methotrexate versus the monotherapies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. In a double-blind, randomised, clinical efficacy, safety, and radiographic study, 686 patients with active rheumatoid arthritis were randomly allocated to treatment with etanercept 25 mg (subcutaneously twice a week), oral methotrexate (up to 20 mg every week), or the combination. Clinical response was assessed by criteria of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). The primary efficacy endpoint was the numeric index of the ACR response (ACR-N) area under the curve (AUC) over the first 24 weeks. The primary radiographic endpoint was change from baseline to week 52 in total joint damage and was assessed with the modified Sharp score. Analysis was by intention to treat. Four patients did not receive any drug; thus 682 were studied. ACR-N AUC at 24 weeks was greater for the combination group compared with etanercept alone and methotrexate alone (18.3%-years [95% CI 17.1-19.6] vs 14.7%-years [13.5-16.0], p<0.0001, and 12.2%-years [11.0-13.4], p<0.0001; respectively). The mean difference in ACR-N AUC between combination and methotrexate alone was 6.1 (95% CI 4.5-7.8, p<0.0001) and between etanercept and methotrexate was 2.5 (0.8-4.2, p=0.0034). The combination was more efficacious than methotrexate or etanercept alone in retardation of joint damage (mean total Sharp score -0.54 [95% CI -1.00 to -0.07] vs 2.80 [1.08 to 4.51], p<0.0001, and 0.52 [-0.10 to 1.15], p=0.0006; respectively). The mean difference in total Sharp score between combination and methotrexate alone was -3.34 (95% CI -4.86 to -1.81, p<0.0001) and between etanercept and methotrexate was -27 (-3.81 to -0.74, p=0.0469). The number of patients reporting infections or adverse events was similar in all groups. The combination of etanercept and methotrexate was significantly better in reduction of disease activity, improvement of functional disability, and retardation of radiographic progression compared with methotrexate or etanercept alone. These findings bring us closer to achievement of remission and repair of structural damage in rheumatoid arthritis.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            JAK–STAT Signaling as a Target for Inflammatory and Autoimmune Diseases: Current and Future Prospects

            The Janus kinase/signal transduction and activator of transcription (JAK–STAT) signaling pathway is implicated in the pathogenesis of inflammatory and autoimmune diseases including rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and inflammatory bowel disease. Many cytokines involved in the pathogenesis of autoimmune and inflammatory diseases use JAKs and STATs to transduce intracellular signals. Mutations in JAK and STAT genes cause a number of immunodeficiency syndromes, and polymorphisms in these genes are associated with autoimmune diseases. The success of small-molecule JAK inhibitors (Jakinibs) in the treatment of rheumatologic disease demonstrates that intracellular signaling pathways can be targeted therapeutically to treat autoimmunity. Tofacitinib, the first rheumatologic Jakinib, is US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for rheumatoid arthritis and is currently under investigation for other autoimmune diseases. Many other Jakinibs are in preclinical development or in various phases of clinical trials. This review describes the JAK–STAT pathway, outlines its role in autoimmunity, and explains the rationale/pre-clinical evidence for targeting JAK–STAT signaling. The safety and clinical efficacy of the Jakinibs are reviewed, starting with the FDA-approved Jakinib tofacitinib, and continuing on to next-generation Jakinibs. Recent and ongoing studies are emphasized, with a focus on emerging indications for JAK inhibition and novel mechanisms of JAK–STAT signaling blockade.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Radiographic, clinical, and functional outcomes of treatment with adalimumab (a human anti-tumor necrosis factor monoclonal antibody) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis receiving concomitant methotrexate therapy: a randomized, placebo-controlled, 52-week trial.

              Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) is an important proinflammatory cytokine that mediates inflammatory synovitis and articular matrix degradation in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We investigated the ability of adalimumab, a human anti-TNF monoclonal antibody, to inhibit the progression of structural joint damage, reduce the signs and symptoms, and improve physical function in patients with active RA receiving concomitant treatment with methotrexate (MTX). In this multicenter, 52-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 619 patients with active RA who had an inadequate response to MTX were randomized to receive adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneously every other week (n = 207), adalimumab 20 mg subcutaneously every week (n = 212), or placebo (n = 200) plus concomitant MTX. The primary efficacy end points were radiographic progression at week 52 (total Sharp score by a modified method [TSS]), clinical response at week 24 (improvements of at least 20% in the American College of Rheumatology core criteria [ACR20]), and physical function at week 52 (disability index of the Health Assessment Questionnaire [HAQ]). At week 52, there was statistically significantly less radiographic progression, as measured by the change in TSS, in the patients receiving adalimumab either 40 mg every other week (mean +/- SD change 0.1 +/- 4.8) or 20 mg weekly (0.8 +/- 4.9) as compared with that in the placebo group (2.7 +/- 6.8) (P < or = 0.001 for each comparison). In addition, there were statistically significant changes in the components of the TSS. At week 24, ACR20 responses were achieved by 63% and 61% of patients in the adalimumab 40 mg every other week and 20 mg weekly groups, respectively, versus 30% of patients in the placebo group (P < or = 0.001 for each comparison). At week 52, ACR20 responses were achieved by 59% and 55% of patients taking adalimumab 40 mg every other week and 20 mg weekly, respectively, versus 24% of patients taking placebo (P < or = 0.001 for each comparison). At week 52, physical function as measured by the HAQ demonstrated statistically significant improvement with adalimumab 40 mg every other week and 20 mg weekly compared with placebo (mean change in HAQ score -0.59 and -0.61, respectively, versus -0.25; P < or = 0.001 for each comparison). A total of 467 patients (75.4%) completed 52 weeks of treatment. Adalimumab was generally well tolerated. Discontinuations occurred in 22.0% of adalimumab-treated patients and in 30.0% of placebo-treated patients. The rate of adverse events (both serious and nonserious) was comparable in the adalimumab and placebo groups, although the proportion of patients reporting serious infections was higher in patients receiving adalimumab (3.8%) than in those receiving placebo (0.5%) (P < or = 0.02), and was highest in the patients receiving 40 mg every other week. In this 52-week trial, adalimumab was more effective than placebo at inhibiting the progression of structural joint damage, reducing the signs and symptoms, and improving physical function in patients with active RA who had demonstrated an incomplete response to MTX.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                ioyaguez@porib.com
                Journal
                Clin Rheumatol
                Clin. Rheumatol
                Clinical Rheumatology
                Springer International Publishing (Cham )
                0770-3198
                1434-9949
                17 April 2020
                17 April 2020
                2020
                : 39
                : 10
                : 2919-2930
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Rheumatology Deparment Hospital Quirón Salud Infanta Luisa, Seville, Spain
                [2 ]GRID grid.411068.a, ISNI 0000 0001 0671 5785, Hospital Pharmacy, Hospital Universitario Clínico San Carlos, ; Madrid, Spain
                [3 ]GRID grid.81821.32, ISNI 0000 0000 8970 9163, Rheumatology Department Hospital Universitario La Paz, ; Madrid, Spain
                [4 ]GRID grid.424551.3, Pfizer S.L.U, ; Alcobendas, Madrid Spain
                [5 ]Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research Iberia (PORIB), Paseo Joaquín Rodrigo, 4 letra I, 28224 Pozuelo de Alarcón, Madrid Spain
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3047-6152
                Article
                5087
                10.1007/s10067-020-05087-3
                7497326
                32303858
                a9167de3-85df-47d6-83aa-71f8fdaaa257
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 3 March 2020
                : 1 April 2020
                : 2 April 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: Pfizer Spain
                Award ID: Pfizer-2019-11
                Categories
                Original Article
                Custom metadata
                © International League of Associations for Rheumatology (ILAR) 2020

                Rheumatology
                cost-effectiveness,rheumatoid arthritis,tofacitinib
                Rheumatology
                cost-effectiveness, rheumatoid arthritis, tofacitinib

                Comments

                Comment on this article