Model-based cost-effectiveness analyses comparing combinations of urate lowering therapy and anti-inflammatory treatment in gout patients

Objectives: To assess the cost-effectiveness of various combinations of urate lowering therapy (ULT) and anti-inflammatory treatment in the management of newly diagnosed gout patients, from the Dutch societal perspective. Methods: A probabilistic patient-level simulation estimating costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) comparing gout and hyperuricemia treatment strategies was performed. ULT options febuxostat, allopurinol and no ULT were considered. Flare treatments naproxen, colchicine, prednisone, and anakinra were considered. A Markov Model was constructed to simulate gout disease. Health states were no flare, and severe pain, mild pain, moderate pain, or no pain in the presence of a flare. Model input was derived from patient level clinical trial data, meta-analyses or from previously published health-economic evaluations. The results of probabilistic sensitivity analyses were presented using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and summarized using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs). Scenario analyses were performed. Results: The ICER for allopurinol versus no ULT was €1,381, when combined with naproxen. Febuxostat yielded the highest utility, but also the highest costs (€4,385 vs. €4,063 for allopurinol), resulting in an ICER of €25,173 when compared to allopurinol. No ULT was not cost-effective, yielding the lowest utility. For the gout flare medications, comparable effects on utility were achieved. Combined with febuxostat, naproxen was the cheapest option (€4,404), and anakinra the most expensive (€4,651). The ICER of anakinra compared to naproxen was €818,504. Colchicine and prednisone were dominated by naproxen. Conclusion: Allopurinol and febuxostat were both cost-effective compared to No ULT. Febuxostat was cost-effective in comparison with allopurinol at higher willingness-to-pay thresholds. For treating gout flares, colchicine, naproxen and prednisone offered comparable health economic implications, although naproxen was the favoured option

Cost-effectiveness of different treat-to-target strategies in rheumatoid arthritis: results from the DREAM registry

Abstract Background Adjusting medication of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) until predefined disease activity targets are met, i.e. Treat-to-Target (T2T), is the currently recommended treatment approach. However, not much is known about long-term cost-effectiveness of different T2T strategies. We model the 5-year costs and effects of a step-up approach (MTX mono - > MTX + csDMARD combination - > Adalimumab - > second anti-TNF) and an initial combination therapy approach (MTX + csDMARD - > MTX + csDMARD higher dose - > anti-TNFs) from the healthcare and societal perspectives, by adapting a previously validated Markov model. Methods We constructed a Markov model in which 3-monthly transitions between DAS28-defined health states of remission (≤2.6), low (2.6  5.1) were simulated. Modelled patients proceeded to subsequent treatments in case of non-remission at each (3-month) cycle start. In case of remission for two consecutive cycles medication was tapered, until medication-free remission was achieved. Transition probabilities for individual treatment steps were estimated using data of Dutch Rheumatology Monitoring registry Remission Induction Cohort I (step-up) and II (initial combination). Expected costs, utility, and ICER after 5 years were compared between the two strategies. To account for parameter uncertainty, probabilistic sensitivity analysis was employed through Gamma, Normal, and Dirichlet distributions. All utilities, costs, and transition probabilities were replaced by fitted distributions. Results Over a 5-year timespan, initial combination therapy was less costly and more effective than step-up therapy. Initial combination therapy accrued €16,226.3 and 3.552 QALY vs €20,183.3 and 3.517 QALYs for step-up therapy. This resulted in a negative ICER, indicating that initial combination therapy was both less costly and more effective in terms of utility gained. This can be explained by higher (±5%) remission percentages in initial combination strategy at all time points. More patients in remission generates less healthcare and productivity loss costs and higher utility. Additionally, higher remission percentages caused less bDMARD use in the initial combination strategy, lowering overall costs. Conclusion Initial combination therapy was found favourable over step-up therapy in the treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis, when considering cost-effectiveness. Initial combination therapy resulted in more utility at a lower cost over 5 years

Cost-effectiveness of a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor vs a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (Bdmard) in a treat-to-target strategy for rheumatoid arthritis

Background: Baricitinib is a janus kinase (JAK1/JAK2) inhibitor developed for the treatment of patients suffering from rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Treating RA to the target of remission is current common practice. Cost-effectiveness of different treat-to-target (T2T) strategies, especially ones including new treatments is important for development and preference policy for treatment centers. European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines are currently unclear about preference between a JAK1/JAK2 versus a biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD). Objective: The main goal of this paper was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib versus first biological for methotrexate inadequate responders in a T2T strategy using a Markov model that incorporates hospital costs as well as societal costs. Costs and utilities over five years were compared between the two strategies. Methods: A Monte Carlo simulation model was developed to conduct cost–utility analysis from the societal perspective over 5 years. Health states were based on the DAS28-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) categories. Effectiveness of baricitinib was retrieved from randomized controlled trials. Effectiveness of all other treatments, health state utilities, medical costs, and productivity loss were retrieved from the Dutch RhEumatoid Arthritis Monitoring (DREAM) cohorts. Annual discount rates of 1.5% for utility and 4% for costs were used. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was employed to incorporate uncertainty and assess robustness of the results. Results: Probabilistic sensitivity analysis results showed the baricitinib strategy yielded lower costs and higher utility over a 5-year period. Scenario analyses showed the baricitinib strategy to be cost-effective in both the moderate and severe RA populations. Conclusion: Results suggest that the use of a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor instead of a bDMARD in a T2T approach is cost-effective in csDMARD refractory RA patients

Prognostic model on niche development after a first caesarean section:development and internal validation

Objective: To develop and internally validate a prognostic prediction model for development of a niche in the uterine scar after a first caesarean section (CS). Study design: Secondary analyses on data of a randomized controlled trial, performed in 32 hospitals in the Netherlands among women undergoing a first caesarean section. We used multivariable backward logistic regression. Missing data were handled using multiple imputation. Model performance was assessed by calibration and discrimination. Internal validation using bootstrapping techniques took place. The outcome was ‘development of a niche in the uterus’, defined as an indentation of = 2 mm in the myometrium. Results: We developed two models to predict niche development: in the total population and after elective CS. Patient related risk factors were: gestational age, twin pregnancy and smoking, and surgery related risk factors were double-layer closure and less surgical experience. Multiparity and Vicryl suture material were protective factors. The prediction model in women undergoing elective CS revealed similar results. After internal validation, Nagelkerke R2 ranged from 0.01 to 0.05 and was considered low; median area under the curve (AUC) ranged from 0.56 to 0.62, indicating failed to poor discriminative ability. Conclusions: The model cannot be used to accurately predict the development of a niche after a first CS. However, several factors seem to influence scar healing which indicates possibilities for future prevention such as surgical experience and suture material. The search for additional risk factors that play a role in development of a niche should be continued to improve the discriminative ability

Effect of single- versus double-layer uterine closure during caesarean section on postmenstrual spotting (2Close): multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled superiority trial

Objective: To evaluate whether double-layer uterine closure after a first caesarean section (CS) is superior compared with single-layer uterine closure in terms of postmenstrual spotting and niche development in the uterine caesarean scar. Design: Multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled superiority trial. Setting: Thirty-two hospitals in the Netherlands. Population: A total of 2292 women aged ≥18 years undergoing a first CS were randomly assigned to each procedure (1:1): 1144 women were assigned to single-layer uterine closure and 1148 women were assigned to double-layer uterine closure. Methods: Single-layer unlocked closure and double-layer unlocked closure, with the second layer imbricating the first. Main outcome measures: Number of days with postmenstrual spotting during one menstrual cycle 9 months after CS. Secondary outcomes: perioperative and menstrual characteristics; transvaginal ultrasound measurements. Results: A total of 774 (67.7%) women from the single-layer group and 770 (67.1%) women from the double-layer group were evaluable for the primary outcome, as a result of drop-out and amenorrhoea. The mean number of postmenstrual spotting days was 1.33 (bootstrapped 95% CI 1.12–1.54) after single-layer closure and 1.26 (bootstrapped 95% CI 1.07–1.45) after double-layer closure (adjusted mean difference −0.07, 95% CI −0.37 to 0.22, P = 0.810). The operative time was 3.9 minutes longer (95% CI 3.0–4.9 minutes, P < 0.001) and niche prevalence was 4.7% higher (95% CI 0.7–8.7%, P = 0.022) after double-layer closure. Conclusions: The superiority of double-layer closure compared with single-layer closure in terms of postmenstrual spotting after a first CS was not shown. Long-term obstetric follow-up of our trial is needed to assess whether uterine caesarean closure guidelines should be adapted. Tweetable abstract: Double-layer uterine closure is not superior for postmenstrual spotting after a first caesarean; single-layer closure performs slightly better on other outcomes