David Walker1, Iain Goff1, Sandra Robinson2. 1. Northumbria Healthcare NHS FoundationTrust, North Shields, England, UK. 2. Northumbria Healthcare NHS FoundationTrust, North Shields, England, UK. sandra.robinson3@nhct.nhs.uk.
Abstract
The cost-effectiveness of higher cost drugs (HCDs) after several failures is disputed by some purchasers of services for people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We were interested to explore our service experience of using HCDs beyond the third choice to document response rates and duration of treatments. METHOD: Records from our multi-disciplinary team meeting (MDT) that is used to decide on the use of HCDs were used to identify all RA patients who had been exposed to four or more HCDs. Notes were scrutinised for sequence of treatments, duration and response to treatments and reasons for stopping at each choice point. RESULTS: From a total of 2648 RA patients in our service, 49 (< 2%) had been exposed to four or more HCDs. Response rates based on descriptive assessments for fourth to sixth choices were between 50 and 55% as well as some partial responders. There were responders and failures to all drugs at every choice point. Patients who had responded to one drug were more likely to respond to the next. Patients often responded to drugs for approximately 2 years. Only four patients had stopped looking for the next HCD. CONCLUSION: Patients often respond to late choice HCDs. There are responders and failures at each time point and they are difficult to predict. There is no justification for restricting the number of HCDs that can be tried for RA. Key Points • Less than 2% of our RA patients required 4 or more higher cost drugs. • Fourth to sixth choice drugs still worked in 50 to 55% of patients. • There is no justification for CCGs restricting the number of drugs that can be tried.
The cost-effectiveness of higher cost drugs (HCDs) after several failures is disputed by some purchasers of services for people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We were interested to explore our service experience of using HCDs beyond the third choice to document response rates and duration of treatments. METHOD: Records from our multi-disciplinary team meeting (MDT) that is used to decide on the use of HCDs were used to identify all RA patients who had been exposed to four or more HCDs. Notes were scrutinised for sequence of treatments, duration and response to treatments and reasons for stopping at each choice point. RESULTS: From a total of 2648 RA patients in our service, 49 (< 2%) had been exposed to four or more HCDs. Response rates based on descriptive assessments for fourth to sixth choices were between 50 and 55% as well as some partial responders. There were responders and failures to all drugs at every choice point. Patients who had responded to one drug were more likely to respond to the next. Patients often responded to drugs for approximately 2 years. Only four patients had stopped looking for the next HCD. CONCLUSION: Patients often respond to late choice HCDs. There are responders and failures at each time point and they are difficult to predict. There is no justification for restricting the number of HCDs that can be tried for RA. Key Points • Less than 2% of our RA patients required 4 or more higher cost drugs. • Fourth to sixth choice drugs still worked in 50 to 55% of patients. • There is no justification for CCGs restricting the number of drugs that can be tried.
Authors: Anat Fisher; Ken Bassett; James M Wright; M Alan Brookhart; Hugh Freeman; Colin R Dormuth Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-08-20 Impact factor: 3.240