ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2015
Application of a validated algorithm to estimate the effectiveness and cost of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis in the US pharmacy benefit manager context.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validation of new medication use algorithms as proxies for worsening disease activity in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2024Article
- Subcutaneous Delivery of High-Dose/Volume Biologics: Current Status and Prospect for Future Advancements.Drug design, development and therapy · 2021Review
- Payer Perspectives on Intravenous versus Subcutaneous Administration of Drugs.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2021Article
- Effectiveness and Costs Among Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients Treated with Targeted Immunomodulators Using Real-World U.S. Data.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2020Observational
- Impact of Plan-Level Access Restrictions on Effectiveness of Biologics Among Patients with Rheumatoid or Psoriatic Arthritis.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2020Article
- Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Therapy and the Risk for Depression Among Working-Age Adults with Rheumatoid Arthritis.American health & drug benefits · 2019Article
- Costs associated with failure to respond to treatment among patients with rheumatoid arthritis initiating TNFi therapy: a retrospective claims analysis.Arthritis research & therapy · 2017Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral biologic medicines are available to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and they differ in administration method (subcutaneous or intravenous [IV]). We analyzed a pharmacy benefit manager database to estimate claims-based, algorithm-determined effectiveness and cost per effectively treated patient for biologics used to treat RA.
methodsWe analyzed the Medco Health Solutions pharmacy benefit manager database to identify patients with one or more claims for a biologic used to treat RA from 2007 to 2012. The first observed claim defined the index date, the previous 180 days were the pre-index period, and follow-up was 365 days after the index date. Effectiveness of a biologic was determined by a validated, published algorithm designed for use in claims database analyses. Cost per effectively treated patient as determined by the algorithm was calculated as the total annual cost of the biologic therapy divided by the number of effectively treated patients. Analyses were conducted for subcutaneous, IV, and individual biologics.
resultsThe analysis population was 1,090 patients (subcutaneous: 785, IV: 305; etanercept: 440, adalimumab: 345, infliximab: 201, abatacept: 104). The mean age was 49.7±9.4 years, and 78% of the patients were female. Effectiveness according to the algorithm was higher in subcutaneous (36%) versus IV biologics (23%; P<0.001), and in etanercept (36%) versus infliximab (22%; P<0.001) and versus abatacept (24%; P=0.02). Etanercept and adalimumab were similar (35%; P=0.77). The cost per effectively treated patient according to the algorithm was $64,738 for subcutaneous biologics, $80,408 for IV biologics, $62,841 for etanercept, $67,226 for adalimumab, $90,696 for infliximab, and $62,303 for abatacept.
conclusionEffectiveness according to a validated, claims-based algorithm was higher in subcutaneous versus IV biologics. Cost per effectively treated patient according to the algorithm was approximately $16,000 less in subcutaneous versus IV biologics.
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.