Logo image
Back
Cost per response for abatacept versus adalimumab in patients with seropositive, erosive early rheumatoid arthritis in the US, Germany, Spain, and Canada
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

Cost per response for abatacept versus adalimumab in patients with seropositive, erosive early rheumatoid arthritis in the US, Germany, Spain, and Canada

Jason Foo, Chaienna Morel, Martin Bergman, Christoph Baerwald, José Manuel Rodriguez-Heredia, Alexander Marshall, Carlos Polanco-Sánchez and Roelien Postema
Rheumatology international, v 39(9), pp 1621-1630
Sep 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-019-04352-2
PMID: 31240388
Featured in Collection :   UN Sustainable Development Goals @ Drexel
url
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-019-04352-2View
Published, Version of Record (VoR)CC BY V4.0,  Open

Abstract

Abatacept - adverse effects Abatacept - economics Abatacept - therapeutic use Adalimumab - adverse effects Adalimumab - economics Adalimumab - therapeutic use Arthritis, Rheumatoid - diagnosis Arthritis, Rheumatoid - drug therapy Arthritis, Rheumatoid - economics Biological Products - adverse effects Biological Products - economics Biological Products - therapeutic use Biomarkers - blood Canada Cost Savings Cost-Benefit Analysis Drug Costs Germany Humans Models, Biological Remission Induction Spain Time Factors Treatment Outcome United States
Effective treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with biologic DMARDs poses a significant economic burden. The AMPLE (Abatacept versus adaliMumab comParison in bioLogic-naïvE RA subjects with background methotrexate) trial was a head-to-head, randomized study comparing abatacept with adalimumab. A post hoc analysis showed improved efficacy for abatacept in patients with versus without seropositive, erosive early RA. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the cost per response (ACR20/50/70/90 and HAQ-DI) and patient in remission (DAS28-CRP, CDAI, and SDAI) for abatacept relative to adalimumab, in patients with seropositive, erosive early RA in the US, Germany, Spain, and Canada. A previously published model was used to compare abatacept and adalimumab in a cohort of 1000 patients over 2 years. Clinical inputs were updated based on two subpopulations from the AMPLE trial. Cohort 1 included patients with early RA (disease duration ≤ 6 months), RF and/or ACPA seropositivity, and > 1 radiographic erosion. Cohort 2 included patients with RA in whom at least one of these criteria was absent. For cohort 1, all incremental costs per additional health gain (patient response or patient in remission) favoured abatacept in all countries, except for DAS28-CRP remission in Canada. Cost savings versus adalimumab were greater when more stringent response criteria were applied and also in cohort 1 patient (versus cohort 2 patients). The cost per responder and patient in remission favoured abatacept in patients with seropositive, erosive early RA across all the countries. In this patient population, the use of abatacept instead of adalimumab can lead to lower costs in the US, Germany, Spain, and Canada.

Metrics

15 Record Views
5 citations in Web of Science
5 citations in Scopus

Details

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This publication has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:

#3 Good Health and Well-Being

InCites Highlights

Data related to this publication, from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool:

Collaboration types
Industry collaboration
Domestic collaboration
International collaboration
Web of Science research areas
Rheumatology
Logo image