Suppr超能文献

早期使用阿巴西普治疗抗环瓜氨酸肽抗体阳性类风湿关节炎患者的成本效益分析。

Cost-effectiveness of early treatment of ACPA-positive rheumatoid arthritis patients with abatacept.

机构信息

Institute for Health Economics, München, Germany.

Bristol-Myers Squibb, München, Germany.

出版信息

Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2018 May-Jun;36(3):448-454. Epub 2017 Dec 15.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Studies have reported that the presence of elevated anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA)/RF levels, together with joint erosions, is associated with higher disease burden in terms of disability and mortality in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Abatacept has been shown to be effective in this patient population with favourable comparative data against adalimumab. However, few studies have investigated the cost-effectiveness of abatacept in this population to similar treatments such as TNFs. The objective of the study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of abatacept to adalimumab as a first bDMARD in ACPA-positive RA patients who failed treatment with methotrexate (MTX) in Germany.

METHODS

A decision tree model was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness, from a payer's perspective, of different treatment sequences in RA over a two year time frame. The effectiveness criteria were defined as achieving the treatment target measured by the Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28(CRP)<2.6; "remission"). A treatment switch to a different biologic as 2nd line and 3rd line bDMARD was allowed - in case of not achieving remission with therapy - every 6 months over a two year time period. Effectiveness data was based on randomised controlled trials (RCT) identified by an updated previous systematic literature search by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). Costs of medication and other direct medical costs were considered. Cost-effectiveness of RA treatment was investigated in ACPA-positive patients and presented as overall costs per day in remission.

RESULTS

For ACPA-positive patients, treatment strategies including early treatment with abatacept had lower total costs per clinical outcome compared to later use. Treatment sequences starting with abatacept resulted in lower costs per day in remission (mean 330 €/day, range 328-333 €/day) compared to sequences starting with adalimumab (mean 384 €/day, range 378-390 €/day). Choice of the second or third biologic in the treatment sequences appears to have little impact on the costs per outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this analysis suggest that in ACPA-positive RA patients treatment with abatacept appears to have lower costs per response (remission) compared to treatment with adalimumab as a first bDMARD.

摘要

目的

研究报告称,抗瓜氨酸化蛋白抗体(ACPA)/RF 水平升高以及关节侵蚀的存在与类风湿关节炎(RA)的残疾和死亡率方面的更高疾病负担相关。阿巴西普已被证明对接受这种治疗的患者人群有效,并且与阿达木单抗相比具有有利的对照数据。然而,很少有研究调查阿巴西普在这一人群中的成本效益,以及与 TNF 等类似治疗方法相比。本研究的目的是比较 ACPA 阳性 RA 患者在接受甲氨蝶呤(MTX)治疗失败后,使用阿巴西普与阿达木单抗作为一线 bDMARD 的成本效益。

方法

使用决策树模型从支付者的角度估算了在两年时间内不同 RA 治疗方案的成本效益。疗效标准定义为通过 28 个关节疾病活动度评分(DAS28(CRP)<2.6;“缓解”)来达到治疗目标。在治疗期间,每 6 个月允许进行二线和三线 bDMARD 的治疗转换——如果治疗未达到缓解。在两年时间内,在二线和三线 bDMARD 治疗中允许使用不同的生物制剂。疗效数据基于由德国健康促进研究所(IQWiG)更新的先前系统文献检索中确定的随机对照试验(RCT)。考虑了药物治疗和其他直接医疗费用。RA 治疗的成本效益在 ACPA 阳性患者中进行了研究,并以缓解状态下的每日总成本表示。

结果

对于 ACPA 阳性患者,早期使用阿巴西普的治疗策略与晚期使用相比,具有更低的每例临床结局总成本。以阿巴西普开始的治疗序列导致缓解状态下的每日费用更低(平均 330 欧元/天,范围 328-333 欧元/天),而以阿达木单抗开始的治疗序列导致缓解状态下的每日费用更高(平均 384 欧元/天,范围 378-390 欧元/天)。治疗序列中第二或第三生物制剂的选择似乎对结果的成本影响不大。

结论

本分析结果表明,在 ACPA 阳性 RA 患者中,与阿达木单抗作为一线 bDMARD 相比,阿巴西普治疗的缓解成本效益更高。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验