Francis Fagnani1, Thao Pham2, Pascal Claudepierre3, Francis Berenbaum4, Thibault De Chalus5, Carine Saadoun5, Jean-Michel Joubert5, Bruno Fautrel6. 1. a CEMKA-EVAL , Bourg-la-Reine , France ; 2. b Université d'Aix Marseille, Service de Rhumatologie, AP-HM Hôpital Sainte-Marguerite , Marseille , France ; 3. c AP-HP, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Service de Rhumatologie, and Université Paris Est Créteil, Laboratoire d'Investigation Clinique (LIC) EA4393 , Créteil , France ; 4. d AP-HP Hôpital Saint-Antoine, Service de Rhumatologie and Université Paris VI UPMC-INSERM , Paris , France ; 5. e UCB Pharma , Colombes , France ; 6. f Université Paris 6 - GRC UPMC-08; AP-HP, Service de Rhumatologie, GH Pitié Salpêtrière , Paris , France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a Treat-to-Target strategy with certolizumab pegol in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the context of a pay-for-performance agreement in which medication costs are refunded in case of discontinuation during the first 3 months of treatment. METHODS: The Treat-to-Target strategy consisted of a systematic switch to second-line tumor necrosis factor (TNF)α inhibitor in case of an unmet ACR50 response at 3 months compared to current routine clinical practice. A reference cohort treated first-line with certolizumab pegol according to current practice without systematic switching was considered as the comparator. A decision-tree model was constructed to estimate clinical outcome (health assessment questionnaire-disability index or HAQ-DI score), time spent in ACR50 response (ACR 50), and direct costs of treatment over a 2-year period. HAQ scores were derived from American College of Rheumatology 50 (ACR50) responses. All TNFα inhibitors were assumed to have equivalent efficacy and tolerability. Costs were estimated at 2013 French retail prices (date of the pay-for-performance agreement). RESULTS: The mean duration of an ACR50 response was 1.23 years in the Treat-to-Target strategy certolizumab pegol cohort vs 0.98 years in the reference cohort, resulting in a mean gain in HAQ at 24 months of 0.117. The Treat-to-Target strategy with a mix of TNFα inhibitors as second-line therapy was more expensive than the reference strategy in absolute terms, but this difference was entirely offset by the pay-for-performance agreement. The Treat-to-Target strategy was, thus, cost-neutral over a 2-year period after the payback of CZP cost for patients not achieving the target at 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of a pay-for-performance agreement, the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis using a Treat-to-Target strategy with certolizumab pegol in first line is dominant compared to standard use of this drug in the French setting in 2013.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a Treat-to-Target strategy with certolizumab pegol in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the context of a pay-for-performance agreement in which medication costs are refunded in case of discontinuation during the first 3 months of treatment. METHODS: The Treat-to-Target strategy consisted of a systematic switch to second-line tumor necrosis factor (TNF)α inhibitor in case of an unmet ACR50 response at 3 months compared to current routine clinical practice. A reference cohort treated first-line with certolizumab pegol according to current practice without systematic switching was considered as the comparator. A decision-tree model was constructed to estimate clinical outcome (health assessment questionnaire-disability index or HAQ-DI score), time spent in ACR50 response (ACR 50), and direct costs of treatment over a 2-year period. HAQ scores were derived from American College of Rheumatology 50 (ACR50) responses. All TNFα inhibitors were assumed to have equivalent efficacy and tolerability. Costs were estimated at 2013 French retail prices (date of the pay-for-performance agreement). RESULTS: The mean duration of an ACR50 response was 1.23 years in the Treat-to-Target strategy certolizumab pegol cohort vs 0.98 years in the reference cohort, resulting in a mean gain in HAQ at 24 months of 0.117. The Treat-to-Target strategy with a mix of TNFα inhibitors as second-line therapy was more expensive than the reference strategy in absolute terms, but this difference was entirely offset by the pay-for-performance agreement. The Treat-to-Target strategy was, thus, cost-neutral over a 2-year period after the payback of CZP cost for patients not achieving the target at 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of a pay-for-performance agreement, the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis using a Treat-to-Target strategy with certolizumab pegol in first line is dominant compared to standard use of this drug in the French setting in 2013.
Authors: Pedro Santos-Moreno; Nelson J Alvis-Zakzuk; Laura Villarreal-Peralta; Maria Carrasquilla-Sotomayor; Angel Paternina-Caicedo; Nelson Alvis-Guzmán Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2017-12-16 Impact factor: 2.631
Authors: Bruno Fautrel; Rieke Alten; Bruce Kirkham; Inmaculada de la Torre; Frederick Durand; Jane Barry; Thorsten Holzkaemper; Walid Fakhouri; Peter C Taylor Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2018-03-21 Impact factor: 2.631