OBJECTIVE: Assessment of the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of early intervention in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, with combined step-down prednisolone, methotrexate and sulphasalazine, compared to sulphasalazine alone. METHODS: Multicentre 56 week randomized double-blind trial with full economic analysis of direct costs and utility analysis with rating scale and standard gamble measurement techniques. RESULTS: The combined-treatment group included 76 patients and the sulphasalazinegroup 78 patients. The mean total costs per patient in the first 56 weeks of follow-up were $5519 for combined treatment and $6511 for treatment with sulphasalazine alone (P = 0.37). Out-patient care, in-patient care and non-health care each contributed about one-third to the total costs. The combined-treatment group appeared to generate savings in the length of hospital stay for RA, non-protocol drugs and costs of home help, but comparisons were not statistically significant. Protocol drugs and monitoring were slightly more expensive in the combined-treatment group. Clinical, radiographic and functional outcomes significantly favoured combined treatment at week 28 (radiography also at week 56). Utility scores also favoured combined treatment. CONCLUSION: Combined treatment is cost-effective due to enhanced efficacy at lower or equal direct costs.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Assessment of the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of early intervention in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, with combined step-down prednisolone, methotrexate and sulphasalazine, compared to sulphasalazine alone. METHODS: Multicentre 56 week randomized double-blind trial with full economic analysis of direct costs and utility analysis with rating scale and standard gamble measurement techniques. RESULTS: The combined-treatment group included 76 patients and the sulphasalazine group 78 patients. The mean total costs per patient in the first 56 weeks of follow-up were $5519 for combined treatment and $6511 for treatment with sulphasalazine alone (P = 0.37). Out-patient care, in-patient care and non-health care each contributed about one-third to the total costs. The combined-treatment group appeared to generate savings in the length of hospital stay for RA, non-protocol drugs and costs of home help, but comparisons were not statistically significant. Protocol drugs and monitoring were slightly more expensive in the combined-treatment group. Clinical, radiographic and functional outcomes significantly favoured combined treatment at week 28 (radiography also at week 56). Utility scores also favoured combined treatment. CONCLUSION: Combined treatment is cost-effective due to enhanced efficacy at lower or equal direct costs.
Authors: A Boonen; D van der Heijde; R Landewé; F Guillemin; M Rutten-van Mölken; M Dougados; H Mielants; K de Vlam; H van der Tempel; S Boesen; A Spoorenberg; H Schouten; Sj van der Linden Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Lilian H D van Tuyl; Anne Marie C Plass; Willem F Lems; Alexandre E Voskuyl; Ben A C Dijkmans; Maarten Boers Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2007-03-28 Impact factor: 19.103