Best cost-effectiveness and worker productivity with initial triple DMARD therapy compared with methotrexate monotherapy in early rheumatoid arthritis: cost-utility analysis of the tREACH trial

Pascal H P de Jong*, Johanna M Hazes, Leander R Buisman, Pieternella J Barendregt, Derkjen van Zeben, Peter A van der Lubbe, Andreas H Gerards, Mike H de Jager, Peter B J de Sonnaville, Bernard A Grillet, Jolanda J Luime, Angelique E A M Weel

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

13 Citations (Web of Science)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate direct and indirect costs per quality adjusted life year (QALY) for different initial treatment strategies in very early RA.

METHODS: The 1-year data of the treatment in the Rotterdam Early Arthritis Cohort trial were used. Patients with a high probability (>70%) according to their likelihood of progressing to persistent arthritis, based on the prediction model of Visser, were randomized into one of following initial treatment strategies: (A) initial triple DMARD therapy (iTDT) with glucocorticoids (GCs) intramuscular (n = 91); (B) iTDT with an oral GC tapering scheme (n = 93); and (C) initial MTX monotherapy (iMM) with GCs similar to B (n = 97). Data on QALYs, measured with the Dutch EuroQol, and direct and indirect cost were used. Direct costs are costs of treatment and medical consumption, whereas indirect costs are costs due to loss of productivity.

RESULTS: Average QALYs (sd) for A, B and C were, respectively, 0.75 (0.12), 0.75 (0.10) and 0.73 (0.13) for Dutch EuroQol. Highest total costs per QALY (sd) were, respectively, €12748 (€18767), €10 380 (€15 608) and €17 408 (€21 828) for strategy A, B and C (P = 0.012, B vs C). Direct as well as indirect costs were higher with iMM (strategy C) compared with iTDT (strategy B). Higher direct costs were due to ∼40% more biologic usage over time. Higher indirect costs, on the other hand, were caused by more long-term sickness and reduction in contract hours. iTDT was >95% cost-effective across all willingness-to-pay thresholds compared with iMM.

CONCLUSION: iTDT was more cost-effective and had better worker productivity compared with iMM.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2138-2147
Number of pages10
JournalRheumatology
Volume55
Issue number12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2016

Bibliographical note

Funding:
This work was supported by an unrestricted
grant from Pfizer bv. [0881-102217]. Pfizer had no involvement in study design; in collection, analysis and interpretation of data; writing of the report and decision to submit
for publication.

© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Research programs

  • EMC NIHES-05-63-02 Quality
  • EMC MUSC-01-31-01

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Best cost-effectiveness and worker productivity with initial triple DMARD therapy compared with methotrexate monotherapy in early rheumatoid arthritis: cost-utility analysis of the tREACH trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this