Cost-effectiveness models for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) first emerged in the early 2000s when highly effective but also high-cost biologic therapies began to reach patients. However, these health technology assessment (HTA) models need improvement, a recent paper says.
Cost-effectiveness models for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) first emerged in the early 2000s when highly effective but also high-cost biologic therapies began to reach patients. However, these models need improvement, a recent paper says.
According to the paper, which appeared in Plos One, current health technology assessments (HTAs) for RA rely on disease activity measures that are not aligned to guideline-recommended target measures of remission, and they may even be biased in favor of certain therapies insofar as they privilege measures like C-reactive protein reduction (an outcome particularly achieved with interleukin-6 inhibitors).
Furthermore, disease progression tends to be measured using the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), which is more sensitive to changes in patients with recent-onset disease. Most models also do not report cost effectiveness according to important subgroups, extra-articular manifestations may not be appropriately considered, and current models do not allow for data in which patients require dose escalation or de-escalation, or reinitiation of biologic therapy after discontinuation and subsequent disease flares.
As a response to these concerns, the authors of the paper developed a conceptual model based on the International Society of Pharamacoeconomic and Outcomes Research-Society of Medical Decision Making Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-2 guidelines. They conducted a systematic literature review of existing models as well as an analysis of an RA registry. Then, they convened an expert panel for review.
The resulting model proposes using at least 2 composite measures of disease activity, with 1 used in sensitivity analyses, to evaluate treatment response and disease progression until an objective measure of disease activity is established in RA and used in routine clinical practice.
It also proposes utility mapping based on disease activity and the consideration of subgroups based on prognostic factors and potential treatment-effect modifiers. Stratification of cost-effectiveness by subgroups could have implications for targeting specific treatments or combinations to improve overall clinical outcomes and costs, and could allow for more personalized medicine in RA, the investigators write.
The model also calls for the incorporation of realistic treatment patterns based on clinical practice and registry datasets, as well as the incorporation of extra-articular outcomes and mortality based on disease activity.
Next steps for developing this model, write the authors, include building a model prototype and evaluating its feasibility, as well as considering other registries, including those that focus on treat-to-target approaches. More work will also be needed to specifically address cost effectiveness from the societal perspective, they add.
Reference
Alemao E, Al MJ, Boonen AA, et al. Conceptual model for the health technology assessment of current and novel interventions in rheumatoid arthritis [published online October 5, 2018]. Plos One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0205013.
Decoding the Patent Puzzle: Navigating the Legal Landscape of Biosimilars
March 17th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, Ha Kung Wong, JD, an intellectual patent attorney and partner at Venable LLP, details the confusing landscape that is the US patent system and how it can be improved to help companies overcome barriers to biosimilar competition.
Physician and Patient Perspectives After Starting or Switching to Amgevita in IBD
March 23rd 2024A real-world study surveying physicians and patients on adalimumab biosimilar ABP 501 (Amgevita) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) found both patients initiating ABP 501 and those who had switched from the reference product had higher satisfaction levels.
Biosimilars Rheumatology Roundup for February 2024—Podcast Edition
March 3rd 2024On this episode of Not So Different, The Center for Biosimilars® revisited all the major rheumatology biosimilar news from February 2024, including the FDA approval of the 10th adalimumab biosimilar, the promise for an oral delivery system for ustekinumab, and the impact of adalimumab products on COVID-19 antibodies.
AAD Posters Examine Clinical Effects of Switching to Ustekinumab, Adalimumab Biosimilars
March 20th 2024Two posters presented at the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) annual meeting examined the effects of switching from reference ustekinumab and adalimumab to biosimilar versions in patients with different types of psoriasis.
Webinar Addresses Solutions to Improve Adalimumab Biosimilar Uptake
March 18th 2024Government policies, including those related to prescribing incentives and interchangeability, need to be reworked to encourage biosimilar adoption and create meaningful savings for health systems, according to speakers at a recent webinar.