4.2 Article

Modeling the cost-effectiveness of treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with rituximab using registry data from Southern Sweden

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462309090230

关键词

Cost-effectiveness; Rheumatoid arthritis; Sweden; RA registries; Rituximab

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of rituximab in patients not responding adequately to the first tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor using a model constructed to predict resource consumption and health outcomes in a population-based registry of biological treatments in Southern Sweden (SSATG). Methods: The model was developed as a discrete event simulation model, using SSATG data for the years 1999-2007. The data set included 1,903 patients with complete data on treatments (up to three treatment lines), functional capacity (HAQ), disease activity (DAS28), and utility (EQ-5D). Resource consumption was based on a regular population-based survey of patients in Southern Sweden. Rituximab was incorporated as second line treatment, using effectiveness data for the active group (N = 311) in a clinical trial comparing rituximab to placebo (REFLEX). It is thus compared to the mix of second line biologics used in SSATG. The analysis starts after failure of the first TNF inhibitor. Results are reported as costs ((sic)2008) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY; both discounted 3 percent), for the societal perspective in Sweden. Results: Total costs in the rituximab strategy are estimated at (sic)401,100 compared with (sic)403,000 in the TNF-inhibitor arm. Total QALYs are 5.98 and 5.78, respectively. The findings were found to be robust in extensive sensitivity analysis. Conclusions: In our model, a strategy where rituximab is used as second line treatment after failure of the first TNF inhibitor provides a small saving (essentially due to the lower price of rituximab) and a QALY gain (due to better effect than the mix of second line TNF inhibitors).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据