Rheumatology Advance Access published online on July 30, 2003
Rheumatology, doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keg451
Rheumatology © British Society for Rheumatology 2003; all rights reserved
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Original Papers
1 Operational Research, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK
* Corresponding author. E-mail: A.Brennan{at}Sheffield.ac.uk.
Received 5 December 2002
; accepted 28 May 2003
Objectives. This model examines the cost-effectiveness of etanercept monotherapy under British Society for Rheumatology guidelines, i.e. adults previously failing two disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). It compares a DMARD sequence with etanercept third line against the same sequence excluding etanercept. Method. The 6-monthly trend in Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) disability score is simulated for 10 000 patients' lifetimes using clinical trial data and published literature. Switching to the next treatment is triggered by lack of response, loss of efficacy or adverse events. Patient mortality depends on rheumatoid arthritis life-tables and on epidemiological evidence relating reduced risk to HAQ improvement. Regression of HAQ/EuroQol (EQ-5D) utility provides quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained. Primary analysis includes drug costs, monitoring and hospitalizations. Results. The central estimate cost per QALY is £ 16 330. Sensitivity analyses (£ 7800 to £ 42 000) showed long-term HAQ progression (etanercept, DMARDs, non-responders) as most sensitive variables. The inclusion of potential avoided nursing home admissions and indirect costs/lost employment further improves the cost-effectiveness. Conclusions. For adults in the UK, the results suggest that etanercept is cost-effective when compared with non-biologic agents. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence has accepted that etanercept is cost-effective and recommended its availability for use in patients who have failed at least two DMARDs. This model was an important component of that decision. The model is further suitable for use for a wide range of other cost-effectiveness questions in rheumatoid arthritis.
Key words: Anti-TNF, Cost, Cost-effectiveness, Rheumatoid arthritis.
Modelling the cost-effectiveness of etanercept in adults with rheumatoid arthritis in the UK
2 Wyeth Laboratories, Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  L. BARRA, J. E. POPE, and M. PAYNE Real-World Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Treatment in Rheumatoid Arthritis, Psoriatic Arthritis, and Ankylosing Spondylitis: Cost-Effectiveness Based on Number Needed to Treat to Improve Health Assessment Questionnaire J Rheumatol, July 1, 2009; 36(7): 1421 - 1428. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Y. Bravo Vergel, N. S. Hawkins, K. Claxton, C. Asseburg, S. Palmer, N. Woolacott, I. N. Bruce, and M. J. Sculpher The cost-effectiveness of etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis Rheumatology, November 1, 2007; 46(11): 1729 - 1735. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D L Scott, B Khoshaba, E H Choy, and G H Kingsley Limited correlation between the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and EuroQol in rheumatoid arthritis: questionable validity of deriving quality adjusted life years from HAQ Ann Rheum Dis, November 1, 2007; 66(11): 1534 - 1537. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Kobelt Thoughts on health economics in rheumatoid arthritis Ann Rheum Dis, November 1, 2007; 66(suppl_3): iii35 - iii39. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. M. Ara, A. V. Reynolds, and P. Conway The cost-effectiveness of etanercept in patients with severe ankylosing spondylitis in the UK Rheumatology, August 1, 2007; 46(8): 1338 - 1344. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Brennan, N. Bansback, R. Nixon, J. Madan, M. Harrison, K. Watson, and D. Symmons Modelling the cost effectiveness of TNF-{alpha} antagonists in the management of rheumatoid arthritis: results from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Registry Rheumatology, August 1, 2007; 46(8): 1345 - 1354. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F. Pucino Jr., P. T. Harbus, and R. Goldbach-Mansky Use of biologics in rheumatoid arthritis: Where are we going? Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm., September 15, 2006; 63(18 Suppl 4): S19 - S41. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. J. Bansback, R. Ara, N. Barkham, A. Brennan, A. D. Fraser, P. Conway, A. Reynolds, and P. Emery Estimating the cost and health status consequences of treatment with TNF antagonists in patients with psoriatic arthritis Rheumatology, August 1, 2006; 45(8): 1029 - 1038. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Kavanaugh Health economics: implications for novel antirheumatic therapies Ann Rheum Dis, November 1, 2005; 64(suppl_4): iv65 - iv69. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Kobelt, P. Lindgren, Y. Lindroth, L. Jacobson, and K. Eberhardt Modelling the effect of function and disease activity on costs and quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis Rheumatology, September 1, 2005; 44(9): 1169 - 1175. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. J. Bansback, A. Young, and A. Brennan The NICE reappraisal of biologics in 2005: what rheumatologists need to know Rheumatology, January 1, 2005; 44(1): 3 - 4. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Brennan and N. Bansback Re: Wolfe et al. Do rheumatology cost-effectiveness analyses make sense? Rheumatology, May 1, 2004; 43(5): 677 - 678. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|