Rheumatology Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, Nuovo Ospedale di S. Giovanni di Dio, Azienda Sanitaria di Firenze, Florence, Italy.
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2010 Sep-Oct;28(5):722-7. Epub 2010 Oct 22.
The objective of this Budget Impact Analysis is to evaluate the financial implications of a rituximab-based sequencing strategy in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in the perspective of the Italian National Health Service.
Yearly patients who were eligible for a second-line biological DMARD in Italy were entered into a 5-year model. A Markov chain reproduced the course of this cohort under a number of alternative strategies, including anti-TNF-α cycling and rituximab or abatacept as second and third line agents. The dynamic of the simulation was given by first biological drug failure data, mortality rates, and survival-on-treatment data from published literature. Drug acquisition, administration and monitoring costs were assessed.
Italian patients refractory to a first anti-TNF-α therapy resulted to be about 650 per year, giving a cumulative number of treated patients in five years of 3,240. The anti-TNF-α cycling had a total direct cost which rose from €8.2 million in the first year to €33.8 million in the fifth. The cost per patient of rituximab was lower than the average cost of the anti-TNF-α therapies; the annual difference was around € 4,300. The savings gained from lower individual costs with rituximab were partially offset by the increasing number of patients receiving active medication, resulting in a substantial cost equivalence between third line rituximab and anti-TNF-α cycling scenarios; rituximab, as a second line therapy, produced a savings in total costs of -31.8%. Strategies including abatacept shared the same dynamics, but with higher costs.
The introduction of rituximab in clinical practice could allow an increase in the number of patients receiving an active rheumatoid arthritis treatment without inflating therapy costs.
本预算影响分析旨在从意大利国家卫生服务的角度评估利妥昔单抗为基础的序贯策略治疗类风湿关节炎的财务影响。
每年符合在意大利接受二线生物 DMARD 治疗的患者被纳入 5 年模型。马尔可夫链在多种替代策略下再现了该队列的过程,包括抗 TNF-α 循环和利妥昔单抗或阿巴西普作为二线和三线药物。模拟的动态由首次生物药物失败数据、死亡率和来自已发表文献的治疗中生存数据给出。评估了药物获取、管理和监测成本。
意大利对首次抗 TNF-α 治疗产生抗药性的患者每年约有 650 人,5 年内累计治疗患者 3240 人。抗 TNF-α 循环的直接总成本从第一年的 820 万欧元增加到第五年的 3380 万欧元。利妥昔单抗的患者人均成本低于平均抗 TNF-α 治疗成本;每年的差异约为 4300 欧元。由于使用利妥昔单抗的个体成本降低而节省的费用,部分被接受积极药物治疗的患者数量增加所抵消,导致三线利妥昔单抗和抗 TNF-α 循环方案之间的成本实质上相当;利妥昔单抗作为二线治疗,总成本节省了-31.8%。包括阿巴西普的策略具有相同的动态,但成本更高。
在临床实践中引入利妥昔单抗可能会增加接受积极类风湿关节炎治疗的患者数量,而不会增加治疗成本。