Subscribe or Manage Preferences

Cost per Response for Abatacept versus Adalimumab in Patients with Seropositive, Erosive Early RA

Rheumatology Practice Management December 2017 Vol 5 No 5 - ACR 2017 Conference Correspondent, Rheumatoid Arthritis

A post hoc analysis of the head-to-head, randomized Abatacept versus Adalimumab Comparison in Biologic-Naïve RA Subjects with Background Methotrexate (AMPLE) trial demonstrated that subcutaneous (SC) abatacept treatment showed improved efficacy versus SC adalimumab in patients with seropositive, erosive early rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

A previously described decision tree was used to compare the cost per response and per patient in remission for abatacept and adalimumab in a cohort of 1000 patients from 4 countries—United States, Canada, Germany, and Spain—over a 2-year period. Patients with or without seropositive, erosive early RA from the post hoc analysis of the AMPLE trial, who were defined as disease duration ≤6 months, rheumatoid factor or anticitrullinated protein antibody seropositive, and with >1 radiographic erosion were included. Response assessment was based on American College of Rheumatology 20%/50%/70%/90% improvement criteria (ACR20/ACR50/ACR70/ACR90), and Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI). Direct medical costs of adverse events were based on local tariffs for disease-related groups, and drug costs were obtained from ex-manufacturer price, including mandatory reductions, payback, and transparent discounts for drugs.

For ACR20, ACR50, ACR70, ACR90, and HAQ-DI responses assessed in this analysis, the cost per response in patients with seropositive, erosive early RA favored SC abatacept compared with SC adalimumab across all countries. Moreover, in both subgroups with or without seropositive, erosive early RA, cost per ACR90 and HAQ-DI response consistently favored SC abatacept in all countries. In the United States, compared with adalimumab, the monthly cost per responding patient for abatacept in erosive early RA was −$918 for ACR20, −$1352 for ACR50, −$4175 for ACR70, −$124,174 for ACR90, and −$363 for HAQ-DI. In terms of cost per remission, for patients with seropositive, erosive early RA in all countries, the cost per Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) remission also favored SC abatacept. However, in the United States and Canada, the cost per Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28) remission favored SC adalimumab. In the United States, the monthly cost per patient in remission in erosive early RA was +$622 for DAS28, −$8015 for CDAI, and −$8015 for SDAI. For patients without seropositive, erosive early RA, the results were less favorable for SC abatacept for most countries, except in Germany and Spain, where the cost of abatacept is lower than the cost of adalimumab.

These results support the cost-efficiency benefit of SC abatacept compared with SC adalimumab in patients with seropositive, erosive early RA.

Source: Foo J, Rodriguez Heredia JM, Polanco Sánchez C, et al. Cost per response for abatacept versus adalimumab in patients with seropositive, erosive, early rheumatoid arthritis in the US, Germany, Spain and Canada. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2017;69(suppl 10). Abstract 1465.

Related Items
Efficacy and Safety of Switching from Adalimumab to Sarilumab
Rheumatology Practice Management December 2017 Vol 5 No 5 published on January 8, 2018 in ACR 2017 Conference Correspondent, Rheumatoid Arthritis
Sustained Response in TARGET Study of Sarilumab + csDMARDs versus Placebo in RA Patients with Inadequate Response to TNF Inhibitors
Rheumatology Practice Management December 2017 Vol 5 No 5 published on January 8, 2018 in ACR 2017 Conference Correspondent, Rheumatoid Arthritis
Highly Sensitive Cardiac Troponin I Levels in Peripheral Blood Predict CV Events in Patients with RA
Rheumatology Practice Management December 2017 Vol 5 No 5 published on January 8, 2018 in ACR 2017 Conference Correspondent, Rheumatoid Arthritis
Sarilumab + csDMARDs Effective Regardless of Baseline Disease Activity in RA Patients with Inadequate Response to TNF Inhibitors
Rheumatology Practice Management December 2017 Vol 5 No 5 published on January 8, 2018 in ACR 2017 Conference Correspondent, Rheumatoid Arthritis
An Updated Integrated Safety Analysis of Baricitinib for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe RA
Rheumatology Practice Management December 2017 Vol 5 No 5 published on January 8, 2018 in ACR 2017 Conference Correspondent, Rheumatoid Arthritis
Upadacitinib Is Effective in Patients with Active RA with Inadequate Response to Conventional Synthetic DMARDs
Rheumatology Practice Management December 2017 Vol 5 No 5 published on January 8, 2018 in ACR 2017 Conference Correspondent, Rheumatoid Arthritis
Sarilumab Efficacy Maintained or Improved in Previously Treated Patients with RA
Rheumatology Practice Management December 2017 Vol 5 No 5 published on January 8, 2018 in ACR 2017 Conference Correspondent, Rheumatoid Arthritis
Long-Term Efficacy and Safety Results of SIRROUND-D Trial of Sirukumab in Patients with Active RA Despite DMARD Treatment
Rheumatology Practice Management December 2017 Vol 5 No 5 published on January 8, 2018 in ACR 2017 Conference Correspondent, Rheumatoid Arthritis
Longer Duration of Response in MOBILITY Study with Sarilumab plus MTX in Patients with Active, Moderate-to-Severe RA
Rheumatology Practice Management December 2017 Vol 5 No 5 published on January 8, 2018 in ACR 2017 Conference Correspondent, Rheumatoid Arthritis
Tofacitinib with and without MTX and Adalimumab with MTX Improves PROs in Patients with RA
Rheumatology Practice Management December 2017 Vol 5 No 5 published on January 8, 2018 in ACR 2017 Conference Correspondent, Rheumatoid Arthritis
Last modified: January 15, 2018
  • American Health and Drug Benefits
  • Lynx CME
  • Value Based Care in Rheumatology
  • Oncology Practice Management
  • Urology Practice Management

Search