Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
PharmacoEconomics
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 10/2014

01-10-2014 | Original Research Article

Modelling Outcomes of Complex Treatment Strategies Following a Clinical Guideline for Treatment Decisions in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

Authors: An Tran-Duy, Annelies Boonen, Wietske Kievit, Piet L. C. M. van Riel, Mart A. F. J. van de Laar, Johan L. Severens

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 10/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is characterised by a sequence of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biological response modifiers (BRMs). In most of the Western countries, the drug sequences are determined based on disease activity and treatment history of the patients. A model for realistic patient outcomes should reflect the treatment pathways relevant for patients with specific characteristics.

Objective

This study aimed at developing a model that could simulate long-term patient outcomes and cost effectiveness of treatment strategies with and without inclusion of BRMs following a clinical guideline for treatment decisions.

Methods

Discrete event simulation taking into account patient characteristics and treatment history was used for model development. Treatment effect on disease activity, costs, health utilities and times to events were estimated using Dutch observational studies. Long-term progression of physical functioning was quantified using a linear mixed-effects model. Costs and health utilities were estimated using two-part models. The treatment strategy recommended by the Dutch Society for Rheumatology where both DMARDs and BRMs were available (Strategy 2) was compared with the treatment strategy without BRMs (Strategy 1). Ten thousand theoretical patients were tracked individually until death. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, Monte Carlo simulations were performed with 1,000 sets of parameters sampled from appropriate probability distributions.

Results

The simulated changes over time in disease activity and physical functioning were plausible. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained of Strategy 2 compared with Strategy 1 was €124,011. At a willingness-to-pay threshold higher than €119,167, Strategy 2 dominated Strategy 1 in terms of cost effectiveness but the probability that the Strategy 2 is cost effective never exceeded 0.87.

Conclusions

It is possible to model the outcomes of complex treatment strategies based on a clinical guideline for the management of RA. Following the Dutch guideline and using real-life data, inclusion of BRMs in the treatment strategy for RA appeared to be less favourable in our model than in most of the existing models that compared drug sequences independent of patient characteristics and used data from randomised controlled clinical trials. Despite complexity and demand for extensive data, our modelling approach can help to identify the knowledge gaps in clinical guidelines for RA management and priorities for future research.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Pincus T, Yazici Y, Sokka T, Aletaha D, Smolen JS. Methotrexate as the “anchor drug” for the treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2003;21(5 Suppl 31):179–85.
2.
Saag KG, Teng GG, Patkar NM, Anuntiyo J, Finney C, Curtis JR, et al. American College of Rheumatology 2008 recommendations for the use of nonbiologic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res. 2008;59(6):762–84.CrossRef
3.
Smolen JS, Landewé R, Breedveld FC, Dougados M, Emery P, Gaujoux-Viala C, et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69(6):964–75.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
4.
Emery P, Van Vollenhoven R, Ostergaard M, Choy E, Combe B, Graninger W, et al. Guidelines for initiation of anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: similarities and differences across Europe. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68(4):456–9.PubMedCrossRef
5.
6.
Prevoo MLL, Van’t Hof MA, Kuper HH, Van Leeuwen MA, Van de Putte LBA, Van Riel P. Modified disease activity scores that include twenty-eight-joint counts development and validation in a prospective longitudinal study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1995;38(1):44–8.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Fransen J, van Riel P. The Disease Activity Score and the EULAR response criteria. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2005;23(5):93.
8.
Barton P, Jobanputra P, Wilson J, Bryan S, Burls A. The use of modelling to evaluate new drugs for patients with a chronic condition: the case of antibodies against tumour necrosis factor in rheumatoid arthritis. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:1–91.
9.
Davies A, Cifaldi MA, Segurado OG, Weisman MH. Cost-effectiveness of sequential therapy with tumor necrosis factor antagonists in early rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2009;36(1):16–26.PubMed
10.
Saraux A, Gossec L, Goupille P, Bregman B, Boccard E, Dupont D, et al. Cost-effectiveness modelling of biological treatment sequences in moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis in France. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2010;49(4):733–40.CrossRef
11.
Puolakka K, Blafield H, Kauppi M, Luosujarvi R, Peltomaa R, Leikola-Pelho T, et al. Cost-effectiveness modelling of sequential biologic strategies for the treatment of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis in Finland. Open Rheumatol J. 2012;6:38–43.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
12.
Brennan A, Bansback N, Nixon R, Madan J, Harrison M, Watson K, et al. Modelling the cost effectiveness of TNF-alpha antagonists in the management of rheumatoid arthritis: results from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Registry. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2007;46(8):1345–54.CrossRef
13.
Cimmino MA, Leardini G, Salaffi F, Intorcia M, Bellatreccia A, Dupont D, et al. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of biologic agents for the management of moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis in anti-TNF inadequate responders in Italy: a modelling approach. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2010;29(4):633–41.
14.
Beresniak A, Ariza-Ariza R, Garcia-Llorente JF, Ramirez-Arellano A, Dupont D. Modelling cost-effectiveness of biologic treatments based on disease activity scores for the management of rheumatoid arthritis in Spain. Int J Inflam. 2011;2011:727634.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
15.
Russell A, Beresniak A, Bessette L, Haraoui B, Rahman P, Thorne C, et al. Cost-effectiveness modeling of abatacept versus other biologic agents in DMARDS and anti-TNF inadequate responders for the management of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Rheumatol. 2009;28(4):403–12.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Karnon J. Alternative decision modelling techniques for the evaluation of health care technologies: Markov processes versus discrete event simulation. Health Econ. 2003;12:837–48.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Caro JJ. Pharmacoeconomic analyses using discrete event simulation. PharmacoEconomics. 2005;23:323–32.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Stahl J. Modelling methods for pharmacoeconomics and health technology assessment: an overview and guide. PharmacoEconomics. 2008;26:131–48.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Tran-Duy A, Boonen A, van de Laar MAFJ, Franke AC, Severens JL. A discrete event modelling framework for simulation of long-term outcomes of sequential treatment strategies for ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70:2111–8.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Welsing PMJ, van Gestel AM, Swinkels HL, Kiemeney LALM, Van Riel PLCM. The relationship between disease activity, joint destruction, and functional capacity over the course of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2001;44(9):2009–17.PubMedCrossRef
21.
van Gestel AM, Haagsma CJ, van Riel PLCM. Validation of rheumatoid arthritis improvement criteria that include simplified joint counts. Arthritis Rheum. 2004;41(10):1845–50.CrossRef
22.
Welsing PMJ, van Riel PLCM. The Nijmegen inception cohort of early rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2004;69:14–21.
23.
Welsing PMJ, Fransen J, van Riel PLCM. Is the disease course of rheumatoid arthritis becoming milder? Time trends since 1985 in an inception cohort of early rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2005;52(9):2616–24.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Chorus AMJ, Miedema HS, Wevers CJ, van der Linden S. Labour force participation among patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2000;59(7):549–54.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
25.
26.
Shapiro SS, Wilk MB. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika. 1965;52(3/4):591–611.CrossRef
27.
Breusch TS, Pagan AR. A simple test for heteroscedasticity and random coefficient variation. Econometrica. 1979;47(5):1287–94.CrossRef
28.
Akaike H. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In: Petrov EBN, Caski F, editors. Second international symposium on information theory. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado; 1973. p. 267–281.
29.
Fries JF, Spitz P, Kraines RG, Holman HR. Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1980;23(2):137–45.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Ramey DR, Raynauld JP, Fries JF. The health assessment questionnaire 1992: status and review. Arthritis Rheum. 1992;5(3):119–29.CrossRef
31.
Bruce B, Fries JF. The health assessment questionnaire (HAQ). Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2005;23(5):14.
32.
Hakkaart-van Roijen L, Tan SS, Bouwmans CAM. Handleiding voor kostenonderzoek: methoden en standaard kostprijzen voor economische evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg. Diemen: College voor Zorgverzekeringen; 2010.
33.
34.
Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF. A practical guide for calculating indirect costs of disease. PharmacoEconomics. 1996;10(5):460–6.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Mullahy J. Much ado about two: reconsidering retransformation and the two-part model in health econometrics. J Health Econ. 1998;17(3):247–81.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Manning WG, Mullahy J. Estimating log models: to transform or not to transform? J Health Econ. 2001;20(4):461–94.PubMedCrossRef
37.
38.
The EuroQol Group. EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199–208.CrossRef
39.
Dolan PD, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. A Social tariff for EuroQoL: results from a UK general population survey. Discussion Paper No. 138. York: Centre for Health Economics, University of York; 1995.
40.
Böhning D, Schlattmann P, Lindsay B. Computer-assisted analysis of mixtures (C.A.MAN): statistical algorithms. Biometrics. 1992;48(1):283–303.
41.
Hernández Alava M, Wailoo AJ, Ara R. Tails from the peak district: adjusted limited dependent variable mixture models of EQ-5D questionnaire health state utility values. Value Health. 2012;15(3):550–61.
42.
College voor Zorgverzekeringen. Richtlijnen farmaco-economisch onderzoek, geactualiseerde. Versie 2006.
43.
Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, Kamlet MS, Russell LB. Recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 1996;276(15):1253–8.PubMedCrossRef
44.
45.
Loomes G, McKenzie L. The use of QALYs in health care decision making. Soc Sci Med. 1989;28(4):299–308.PubMedCrossRef
46.
47.
48.
Dolan P. The measurement of individual utility and social welfare. J Health Econ. 1998;17(1):39–52.PubMedCrossRef
49.
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. ISBN 3-900051-07-02012.
50.
Böhning D, Dietz E, Schlattmann P. Recent developments in computer-assisted analysis of mixtures. Biometrics. 1998;54(2):525–36.
51.
52.
Genz A. Numerical computation of multivariate normal probabilities. J Comput Graph Stat. 1992;1(2):141–9.
53.
Press WH, Teukolsky SA, Vetterling W, Flannery BP. Numerical recipes-the art of scientific computing. 3rd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
54.
Weinstein MC, O’Brien B, Hornberger J, Jackson J, Johannesson M, McCabe C, et al. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices—Modeling Studies. Value Health. 2003;6(1):9–17.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Briggs A, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.
56.
Briggs A, Wonderling D, Mooney C. Pulling cost-effectiveness analysis up by its bootstraps: a non-parametric approach to confidence interval estimation. Health Econ. 1997;6:327–40.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Selvin S. Survival analysis for epidemiologic and medical research: a practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008.
58.
Smolen JS, Aletaha D, Bijlsma JWJ, Breedveld FC, Boumpas D, Burmester G, et al. Treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: recommendations of an international task force. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69(4):631–7.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
59.
Buxton MJ, Drummond MF, Van Hout BA, Prince RL, Sheldon TA, Szucs T, et al. Modelling in economic evaluation: an unavoidable fact of life. Health Econ. 1997;6(3):217–27.PubMedCrossRef
60.
Mihaylova B, Briggs A, O’Hagan A, Thompson SG. Review of statistical methods for analysing healthcare resources and costs. Health Econ. 2011;20(8):897–916.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
61.
Shiroiwa T, Sung YK, Fukuda T, Lang HC, Bae SC, Tsutani K. International survey on willingness-to-pay (WTP) for one additional QALY gained: what is the threshold of cost effectiveness? Health Econ. 2010;19(4):422–37.PubMedCrossRef
62.
Basu A, Meltzer D. Value of information on preference heterogeneity and individualized care. Med Decis Mak. 2007;27(2):112–27.CrossRef
63.
van Gestel A, Grutters J, Schouten J, Webers C, Beckers H, Joore M, et al. The role of the expected value of individualized care in cost-effectiveness analyses and decision making. Value Health. 2012;15(1):13–21.PubMedCrossRef
64.
Ter Wee MM, Lems WF, Usan H, Gulpen A, Boonen A. The effect of biological agents on work participation in rheumatoid arthritis patients: a systematic review. Ann Rheum Dis. 2012;71(2):161–71.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Modelling Outcomes of Complex Treatment Strategies Following a Clinical Guideline for Treatment Decisions in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis
Authors
An Tran-Duy
Annelies Boonen
Wietske Kievit
Piet L. C. M. van Riel
Mart A. F. J. van de Laar
Johan L. Severens
Publication date
01-10-2014
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 10/2014
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0184-4

Other articles of this Issue 10/2014

PharmacoEconomics 10/2014 Go to the issue

Erratum

Erratum to: Modelling the Cost Effectiveness of Interventions for Osteoporosis: Issues to Consider

Current Opinion

Ahead of Its Time? Reflecting on New Zealand’s Pharmac Following Its 20th Anniversary

Original Research Article

Cost–Utility Analysis of Chemotherapy Regimens in Elderly Patients with Stage III Colon Cancer

Leading Article

Reconceptualising the External Validity of Discrete Choice Experiments

Leading Article

Decision-Analytic Models: Current Methodological Challenges

Letter to the Editor

Comment on “Ahead of Its Time? Reflecting on New Zealand’s Pharmac Following its 20th Anniversary”