Rheumatoid Arthritis: Dubois RW

Furst DE, Halbert RJ, Bingham CO, Fukudome S, Anderson L, Bonafede P, Bray V, Cohen SB, Sherrer YR, St Clair EW, Tesser JR, Weinblatt M, Dubois RW. · Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, 1000 Veteran Ave Rm 32-59, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1670, USA. · Rheumatology (Oxford). · Pubmed #18178593 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: There is a lack of agreement on assessing disease activity in patients with RA and determining when the RA treatment should be changed or continued. A panel of rheumatologists was convened to develop guidelines to assess adequacy of disease control, focusing on the use of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. METHODS: The Research and Development/University of California in Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) Appropriateness Method was used to evaluate disease control adequacy. After a literature review, 108 scenarios were developed to simulate situations most likely to be encountered in clinical practice and rated on a 9-point scale by a 10-member expert panel. RESULTS: Final appropriateness rankings for the scenarios were as follows: 37% 'appropriate', 48% 'inappropriate', and 16% 'neutral'. The panelists felt that patients with disease control in the 'appropriate' range have adequate control with their current therapy, whereas those in the 'inappropriate' range should be considered for a change in therapy. Those in 'neutral' areas should have their therapy reviewed carefully. The panelists recommended that the clinically active joint count should be considered the most important decision factor. In patients with no clinically active joints, regardless of other factors no change in therapy was felt to be warranted. Patients with five or more active joints should be considered inadequately treated, and in patients with one to four active joints other variables must be considered in the decision to change therapy. CONCLUSION: These preliminary guidelines will assist the clinician in determining when a patient's clinical situation warrants therapy escalation and when continuing the current regimen would be appropriate.

Doan QV, Chiou CF, Dubois RW. · Cerner LifeSciences, 9100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 605E, Beverly Hills, CA 90212, USA. · J Manag Care Pharm. · Pubmed #16981801 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Treatment options for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have expanded from the traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) to include the biologic DMARDs that inhibit tumor necrosis factoralpha (TNF-a). OBJECTIVE: To assess the medical literature for studies of the economic value of biologic DMARDs, specifically the 3 TNF-a inhibitors (adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab) used for the management of RA, compared with the traditional DMARDs such as sulfasalazine, antimalarials, penicillamine, gold, methotrexate, azathioprine, leflunomide, and cyclophosphamide. METHODS: A comprehensive search of the MEDLINE and HealthSTAR databases was conducted to identify cost-efficacy, cost-effectiveness, or cost-utility studies published in the English language (from 1966 through November 2004). The search terms and/or MeSH (medical subject headings) titles were cost-benefit analysis, rheumatoid arthritis, antirheumatic agents, antineoplastic and immunosuppressive agents. Studies were critically reviewed and quality was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument. Most studies evaluated the use of biologics among RA patients resistant to DMARDs. Studies were assessed with regard to comparators evaluated, measures of efficacy, perspectives, model duration, treatment duration, and discount rate. RESULTS: From 180 titles identified, 155 were excluded for the following reasons: 89 because they did not consider the drugs of interest, 15 because the population was not RA, 19 because of having the wrong drugs and population, 22 because they were review articles, and 10 because they were general articles. Twentyfive abstracts were accepted for further review. Of these, 13 abstracts were subsequently selected for full-text review. One of the authors identified a study not indexed in MEDLINE. Ultimately, 2 cost-effectiveness and 6 cost-utility studies were selected for this critical review. One study over 6 months reported that triple therapy with DMARDs (methotrexate-hydroxychloroquine-sulfasalazine) was cost effective for methotrexate-resistant patients, which is consistent with American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines that support the use of triple therapy prior to biologics. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $1,500 per patient to achieve an ACR20 response for this triple therapy compared with no second-line agent. Overall, biologic therapies cost considerably more than traditional DMARDs but produced more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Despite differences in design and assumptions, published economic models consistently reported ICERs <50,000 dollars per QALY gained for biologics compared with traditional DMARDs, although ICERs of >100,000 dollars were reported from sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical guidelines currently recommend the use of biologics as step therapy after failure of traditional DMARDs. Reported ICERs comparing biologics with traditional DMARDs are within a range that is comparable with other accepted medical interventions. The worth of the additional expenditure will ultimately be judged by formulary and policy decision makers because no maximum cost has been defined. Models can be used to inform decision makers, but they must be interpreted and applied carefully. More research is also needed to differentiate the relative economic value of the various biologic agents by therapeutic indication.

Nissenson AR, Wade S, Goodnough T, Knight K, Dubois RW. · Division of Nephrology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, 90095-6945, USA. · J Manag Care Pharm. · Pubmed #16137214 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: Anemia is a common hematological disorder characterized by reduced hemoglobin concentrations. Despite information on prevalence and associated outcomes, little is known about the impact of anemia on health care utilization and costs. This study examines anemia prevalence and associated medical costs and utilization, using administrative claims for adults newly diagnosed with anemia, including up to 12 months of follow-up. METHODS: Patients predisposed to anemia, based on selected comorbid conditions (chronic kidney disease, human immunodeficiency virus, rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, congestive heart failure, and solid-tumor cancers), were identified. Costs for anemic patients and a random sample of nonanemic patients with these conditions were compared. Associations were evaluated after adjustment for potential confounders using a regression model. Clinical care patterns were examined overall and by condition. RESULTS: Anemia was observed in 3.5% (81,423) of approximately 2.3 million health plan members in 2000; 15% of anemic patients received an identified treatment, with transfusion being the most frequent intervention. Utilization and costs were significantly higher for anemic patients (P < 0.001). Average annualized per-patient costs were 14,535 US dollars for anemic patients (55% outpatient, 33% inpatient, 13% pharmacy), 54% higher than the 9,451 US dollars average cost for nonanemic patients (45% outpatient, 36% inpatient, 19% pharmacy). After adjustment for age, other comorbidities (e.g., chronic kidney disease and cancer), sex, and insurance type (indemnity, preferred provider organization/point of service, or health maintenance organization, in the Medstat MarketScan database), anemic patients had average costs that were more than twice the adjusted costs of nonanemic patients. CONCLUSION: Medical costs for anemic patients are as much as twice those for nonanemic patients with the same comorbid conditions.