A systematic review of the effectiveness of adalimumab

More documents

Recommendations

Info

166 Appendix 8 TABLE 81 Welsing et al., 2004 165 (cont’d) Cost data handled Yes. Costs were assigned from a 48-week multicentre trial with MTX that included appropriately 411 patients. Medical and non-medical (absence from paid work, travel expenses) costs were collected Modelling summary A Markov model consisting of health states defined by the DAS. A cycle length of 3 months was used. Markov states from remission (DAS 2.4), moderate disease activity (2.4< DAS >3.7) and high disease activity (DAS28>3.7) were used. A time limit of 5 years (20 cycles) was applied. A specific Markov model was used with the same structure and the same costs and utility values of the Markov states for each treatment strategy. The models used specific transition probabilities and costs for the respective drug treatments. Using these models, the expected costs and effects were compared between the different treatment strategies Outcome measures used in QALYs were compared between the different treatment strategies to calculate cost per economic evaluations QALY and ICERs. EQ-5D was used to calculate utilities. Also considered was cost per patient-year in the three DAS28 states Direction of result with NE quadrant, except for a small number of studies in the NW quadrant, relating to appropriate quadrant location comparisons between interventions 4 and 5. Etanercept alone was dominated by leflunomide/etanercept combinations. Versus usual treatment the ICERs were €163,556 per QALY for LEF–Etan and €297,151 per QALY for Etan–LEF. Versus leflunomide the ICERs were €317,627 per QALY for LEF–Etan and €517,061 per QALY for Etan–LEF Statistical analysis for Not undertaken patient-level stochastic data Appropriateness of statistical NA analysis Uncertainty around Yes. Model uncertainty was explored using PSA. Distributions were specified for the cost-effectiveness expressed transition probabilities, the costs and the utility values of the Markov states and for the response of etanercept (EULAR good/moderate) and leflunomide treatment (ACR20) after 3 months. 2.5–97.5 percentiles were reported from PSA for costs and QALYs, but no ICERs were given Appropriateness of method Yes dealing with uncertainty around cost effectiveness Sensitivity analysis Yes. One-way sensitivity analysis was applied to determine the relative importance of different parameters for the primary outcome. Correlations between the parameters and outcomes were calculated. Important model parameter values as defined by the correlation were also varied in a one-way sensitivity analysis Modelling inputs and Yes techniques appropriate Authors’ conclusions Treatment strategies that include TNF inhibitors are probably the most effective for patients in whom two DMARDs have previously failed, of which one is MTX. From these strategies, treatment starting with leflunomide, and in the case of non-response switching to a TNF inhibitor, probably results in the most favourable ratio between the extra costs and effects PSA, probabilistic sensitivity analysis.
TABLE 82 Brennan et al., 2004 160 © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2006. All rights reserved. Health Technology Assessment 2006; Vol. 10: No. 42 Authors Brennan, Bansback, Reynolds, Conway Date 2004 Type of economic evaluation Cost–utility analysis Country of origin UK Currency used Pounds sterling Year to which costs apply 2000 Perspective NHS in the UK Study population Patients with RA who failed to respond previously to at least two DMARDs (MTX as first line and sulfasalazine as second line) Intervention 1 Treatment pathway I: third option: etanercept monotherapy; fourth: intramuscular gold; and fifth: ciclosporin and MTX Intervention 2 Treatment pathway II: third option: intramuscular gold; fourth: ciclosporin and MTX; and fifth: leflunomide Source of effectiveness data DAS28 scores were used. Comparative data on the DAS28 for etanercept was unavailable, therefore data from a Phase III study of etanercept vs placebo were used, alongside published data for other DMARDs. Patient characteristics of published data were compared with those of the Phase III study to identify studies that enrolled similar patients. Where comparable studies were unavailable, ACR20 response was assumed to be 35%, using published meta-analysis of patient with >10 years, disease duration. These sources were used to inform model parameter values relating to initial response to therapy and initial HAQ response Long-term HAQ response was estimated from published sources and data from a long-term, open-label study of etanercept. ERAS was used as a source of data for HAQ improvements during periods of non-response. Long-term withdrawal was estimated using data from a study based on clinical practice in Sweden, showing an annual withdrawal of 8.3% Evidence presented in four separate studies was used as a basis for the relationship between HAQ and utility to inform quality of life data. Variation in the results was small and the median relationship was used in the primary analysis. Trial data were used to inform response rates of treatment and HAQ improvements Cost data handled Yes. Drug and monitoring costs and other direct costs were examined for each treatment. appropriately Drug costs derived from current list prices and monitoring costs were estimated using BSR guidelines. Evidence from studies in the USA and Sweden suggests a strong correlation between HAQ score and direct costs. Costs reported in these studies were used to inform parameter values (converted to 2000 UK currency using the purchaser parity index and inflation). Both gave an almost identical linear relationship of £860 p.a. increase in direct costs. In the model the difference in the two comparators HAQ score trends is converted into a difference in direct healthcare costs, i.e. worse HAQ scores generate higher direct costs, pro rata Sensitivity analyses were used: first, to examine the impact of the additional costs associated with home help, residential and nursing home care and, secondly, to examine the impact of economic productivity to society through maintained employment. Data from a Swedish study were used to inform the latter Modelling summary A decision-analytic model was developed in Excel. Patients following each treatment pathway (etanercept vs DMARD sequence) were simulated. A cycle length of 6 months was used. A patient population of 10,000 was simulated over the lifetime and a Monte Carlo approach taken. Discounting was applied to costs (6% p.a.) and benefits (1.5% p.a.) in line with guidance from NICE Outcome measures used in QALYs through the use of etanercept compared with current UK clinical practice. HAQ and economic evaluations EQ-5D data were used to calculate QALYs through regression Direction of result with NE quadrant. £16,330 per QALY appropriate quadrant location Statistical analysis for Yes: patient-level data were used taken from the model simulation patient-level stochastic data Appropriateness of statistical Yes analysis continued 167
Page 1 and 2:
A systematic review of the effectiv
Page 3 and 4:
A systematic review of the effectiv
Page 5 and 6:
Objectives: This report reviews the
Page 7:
Glossary and list of abbreviations
Page 10 and 11:
viii Glossary and list of abbreviat
Page 13 and 14:
Background Rheumatoid arthritis (RA
Page 15:
increased risk of serious infection
Page 19 and 20:
Summary RA is a common, chronic, in
Page 21 and 22:
(IL-2) and interleukin-6 (IL-6), pr
Page 23 and 24:
Assessment of response to DMARDs Re
Page 25 and 26:
combination with methotrexate or al
Page 27:
disease between clinic appointments
Page 30 and 31:
14 Effectiveness in juvenile arthri
Page 32 and 33:
16 Effectiveness adalimumab plus me
Page 34 and 35:
18 Effectiveness Monoclonal Antibod
Page 36 and 37:
20 TABLE 1 Description of included
Page 38 and 39:
22 TABLE 2 Quality of included RCTs
Page 40 and 41:
24 Effectiveness change in modified
Page 42 and 43:
26 Effectiveness TABLE 4 Meta-analy
Page 44 and 45:
28 Effectiveness Review: Adalimumab
Page 46 and 47:
30 Effectiveness Review: Adalimumab
Page 48 and 49:
32 TABLE 6 Effectiveness Descriptio
Page 50 and 51:
34 TABLE 6 Effectiveness Descriptio
Page 52 and 53:
36 TABLE 7 Effectiveness Quality of
Page 54 and 55:
38 Effectiveness etanercept trials.
Page 56 and 57:
40 Effectiveness TABLE 9 Summary of
Page 58 and 59:
42 Effectiveness Review: Etanercept
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
54 Effectiveness TABLE 11 Summary o
Page 72 and 73:
56 TABLE 12 Description of included
Page 74 and 75:
58 TABLE 13 Quality of included RCT
Page 76 and 77:
60 Effectiveness per week and escal
Page 78 and 79:
62 Effectiveness significant advant
Page 80 and 81:
64 Effectiveness Review: Infliximab
Page 82 and 83:
66 Effectiveness Review: Infliximab
Page 84 and 85:
68 Effectiveness FIGURE 44 Malignan
Page 86 and 87:
70 TABLE 17 Effectiveness Summary o
Page 89 and 90:
Summary of review of existing econo
Page 91 and 92:
TABLE 20 Summary of published ICERs
Page 93 and 94:
TABLE 21 Published etanercept econo
Page 95 and 96:
TABLE 23 Published economic analyse
Page 97 and 98:
TABLE 25 Treatment sequences: adali
Page 99 and 100:
management of RA, i.e. 1st and 2nd
Page 101 and 102:
To estimate the long-term consequen
Page 103 and 104:
TABLE 32 TNF inhibitors as last act
Page 105 and 106:
TABLE 34 Basic structure of the mod
Page 107 and 108:
een quit on grounds of toxicity, ad
Page 109 and 110:
TABLE 39 Strategy set: adalimumab a
Page 111 and 112:
TABLE 43 Beta distributions for HAQ
Page 113 and 114:
TABLE 44 Early cessation of DMARDs:
Page 115 and 116:
TABLE 46 Unit costs for tests and v
Page 117 and 118:
following properties, according to
Page 119 and 120:
TABLE 52 Base case: TNF inhibitors
Page 121 and 122:
TABLE 54 Base case: TNF inhibitors
Page 123 and 124:
TABLE 59 Third TNF inhibitor follow
Page 125 and 126:
TABLE 65 Sensitivity analyses: TNF
Page 127 and 128:
TABLE 67 Sensitivity analyses: TNF
Page 129:
The substantial economic impact of
Page 133 and 134: Summary Effectiveness: principal fi
Page 135 and 136: inhibitors, although the incrementa
Page 137 and 138: introduce bias which generally exag
Page 139: Adalimumab, etanercept and inflixim
Page 143 and 144: 1. Jobanputra P, Barton P, Bryan S,
Page 145 and 146: 46. Young A, Dixey J, Cox N, Davies
Page 147 and 148: tumor necrosis factor therapy in th
Page 149 and 150: arthritis: a 12-week, double-blind,
Page 151 and 152: 171. Geborek P, Crnkic M, Petersson
Page 153 and 154: 216. Schotte H, Willeke P, Mickholz
Page 155 and 156: The Health Assessment Questionnaire
Page 157 and 158: Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) 2005 Iss
Page 159 and 160: Appendix 3 © Queen’s Printer and
Page 161: TABLE 69 Studies excluded from clin
Page 164 and 165: 148 Appendix 4 TABLE 71 Meta-analys
Page 166 and 167: 150 Appendix 4 TABLE 73 Meta-analys
Page 168 and 169: 152 Appendix 4 Infliximab versus pl
Page 170 and 171: 154 Appendix 4 Infliximab plus MTX
Page 173: Ovid MEDLINE(R) 1966 to February we
Page 177 and 178: Appendix 8 © Queen’s Printer and
Page 179 and 180: TABLE 79 Wong et al., 2002 161 © Q
Page 181: TABLE 80 Kobelt et al., 2003 162 (c
Page 185 and 186: TABLE 83 Kobelt et al., 2004 163 (c
Page 187 and 188: TABLE 85 Bansback et al., 2005 166
Page 189: TABLE 86 Kobelt et al., 2005 167 (c
Page 192 and 193: 176 Appendix 9 TABLE 89 Strategy se
Page 195 and 196: Extensive sensitivity analysis was
Page 197 and 198: TABLE 96 Variation 1: TNF inhibitor
Page 199 and 200: TABLE 99 Variation 2: TNF inhibitor
Page 201 and 202: TABLE 102 Variation 3: TNF inhibito
Page 221 and 222: TABLE 132 Variation 10: TNF inhibit
Page 233 and 234:
TABLE 150 Variation 15: TNF inhibit
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243:
Page 247 and 248:
Volume 1, 1997 No. 1 Home parentera
Page 249 and 250:
No. 3 Screening for sickle cell dis
Page 251 and 252:
No. 25 A rapid and systematic revie
Page 253 and 254:
No. 11 First and second trimester a
Page 255 and 256:
No. 23 Clinical effectiveness and c
Page 257 and 258:
No. 28 Outcomes of electrically sti
Page 259:
No. 28 Adefovir dipivoxil and pegyl
Page 262 and 263:
246 Health Technology Assessment Pr
Page 264:
248 Health Technology Assessment Pr
show all

A systematic review of the effectiveness of adalimumab

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?