ArticleThe open rheumatology journal2012
Cost-effectiveness modelling of sequential biologic strategies for the treatment of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis in Finland.
Article in The open rheumatology journal, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Quantitative Evidence Synthesis Methods for the Assessment of the Effectiveness of Treatment Sequences for Clinical and Economic Decision Making: A Review and Taxonomy of Simplifying Assumptions.PharmacoEconomics · 2021Pooled it
- Systematic Literature Review of Economic Evaluations of Biological Treatment Sequences for Patients with Moderate to Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis Previously Treated with Disease-Modifying Anti-rheumatic Drugs.PharmacoEconomics · 2020Pooled it
- How to select the right cost-effectiveness model? : A systematic review and stepwise approach for selecting a transferable health economic evaluation model for rheumatoid arthritis.PharmacoEconomics · 2014Pooled it
- Including adverse drug events in economic evaluations of anti-tumour necrosis factor-α drugs for adult rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review of economic decision analytic models.PharmacoEconomics · 2014Pooled it
- Value of Remission in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Targeted Review.Advances in therapy · 2022Review
- Abatacept: from a budget impact model to cost-effectiveness analysis - data from RCT and real life.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2019Article
- Clinical Outcomes and Biologic Costs of Switching Between Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in US Veterans with Rheumatoid Arthritis.Advances in therapy · 2016Observational
- Modeling rheumatoid arthritis using different techniques - a review of model construction and results.Health economics review · 2014Article
- Modelling outcomes of complex treatment strategies following a clinical guideline for treatment decisions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.PharmacoEconomics · 2014Article
- Investigating the value of abatacept in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies.ISRN rheumatology · 2013Article
- Current perspectives on tocilizumab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a review.Patient preference and adherence · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe main objective was to compare the cost-effectiveness of therapeutic options in moderate or severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) when a clinical response to a first TNF-blocker, either etanercept (ETA), adalimumab (ADA), or infliximab (INF), is insufficient.
methodsEffectiveness criteria were defined as remission (RS), low disease activity (LDAS), and moderate to high disease activity (MHDAS). Cost-effectiveness was derived as cost per day in RS and in LDAS using simulation modelling to assess six sequential biologic strategies over 2 years. Each sequential treatment strategy was composed of three biologic agents and included a first anti-TNF agent, ETA, ADA or INF, followed by either abatacept (ABA) or rituximab (RTX) as a second therapeutic option in case of an insufficient response, followed by another anti-TNF agent in case of further insufficient response.
resultsOver two years and taking into account biologic costs, the following estimated mean costs per day in RS and LDAS were respectively of €829 and €428 for the biologic sequence composed of ADA-ABA-ETA, €1292 and €516 for the sequence ADA-RTX-ETA, €829 and €429 for the sequence ETA-ABA-ADA, €1292 and €517 for the sequence ETARTX- ADA, €840 and €434 for the sequence INF-ABA-ETA, and €1309 and €523 for the sequence INF-RTX-ETA.
conclusionThe treatment sequences including ABA as the second biologic option appear more cost-effective than those including RTX in a patients with moderate to severe RA and an insufficient response to a first anti-TNF agent.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.