The cost-effectiveness of etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis

Rheumatology

Volumn 46, Issue 11, 2007, Pages 1729-1735

  Bravo Vergel, Y ^a   Hawkins, N S ^a   Claxton, K ^a   Asseburg, C ^a   Palmer, S ^a   Woolacott, N ^a   Bruce, I N ^b   Sculpher, M J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bayesian evidence synthesis; Cost effectiveness; Etanercept; Infliximab; Psoriatic arthritis

Indexed keywords

DISEASE MODIFYING ANTIRHEUMATIC DRUG; ETANERCEPT; INFLIXIMAB;

BAYES THEOREM; CLINICAL TRIAL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DISEASE COURSE; DRUG COST; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG TREATMENT FAILURE; DRUG UTILIZATION; HEALTH ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE; HUMAN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PALLIATIVE THERAPY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS; QUALITY OF LIFE; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TREATMENT WITHDRAWAL;

ADULT; ANTIBODIES, MONOCLONAL; ANTIRHEUMATIC AGENTS; ARTHRITIS, PSORIATIC; BAYES THEOREM; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE III AS TOPIC; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DRUG COSTS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMMUNOGLOBULIN G; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PALLIATIVE CARE; RECEPTORS, TUMOR NECROSIS FACTOR; STATE MEDICINE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TUMOR NECROSIS FACTOR-ALPHA;

EID: 35548954669     PISSN: 14620324     EISSN: 14620332     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/kem221     Document Type: Review

References (49)

1. Patel S, Veale D, FitzGerald O, McHugh NJ. Psoriatic arthritis-emerging concepts. Rheumatology 2001;40:243-6.
2. Ruderman EM. Evaluation and management of psoriatic arthvitis: The role of bioIogic therapy. J Am Acad Dermatol 2003,49(Suppl)2A;S125-32.
3. Galadarl H, Fuchfs B, Lelowohl M. Newly available treatments for psoriatIc arthritis; and their impact on skin psoriasis. Int J Dermatol 2003;42:231-7.
4. Pipitone N, Kingsley GH, Manzo A, Scott DL, Pitzalis C. Current concepts and new developments in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis. Rheumatology 2003;42:1138-48.
5. Krueger GG. Clinical features of psoriatic arthritis. Am J Manag C 2002;8(6 Suppl):SI60-70.
6. Kane D, Stafford L, Bresniham B, FitzGerard 0. A prospective, clinical and radiological study of early psorlatic arthritis: An early synovitis clinic experience. Rheumatology 2003;42:1460-8.
7. Dukes M, Aronson J. Meyler's side effects of drugs: An encyclopedia of adverse reactions and interactions, 14th edn. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2000.
8. British Medical Journal. Clinical Evidence. http://clinicalevidence.bmi.com.
9. United States Pharmacopoeial Convention. USPDI, Vol. 1: Drug Information for the Health Care Professional. Rockville, MD: United States Pharmacopoeial Convention, 2004.
10. Whiling-O'Keefe QE, Fye KH, Sack KD. Methotrexate and histologic hepatic abnormalities: A meta-analysis. Am J Med 1991;90:711-6.
11. Roenigk HH, Auerbach R, Malbach H, Weinstein G, Lebwohl M. Methotrexate in psoriasis: Consensus conference. J Am Acad Dermatol 1998;38:478-85.
12. Bravo Vergel Y, Torgerson D. Cost-effectiveness of new biologics for rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis. In: Reid D, Miller C, Krishan B, eds. Clinical trials In rheumatoid arthritis and ostsoarthritis. London: Springer-Verlag London Limited, in press.
13. Parizer DM. Management of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis with biologic therapy. Manag Care 2003;12:36-44.
14. Gniadecld R, Zacharias C, Calverley M. Trends and developments in the pharmacological treatment of psoriasis. Acts Dermato Venereologica 2002;82:401-10.
15. Prinz JC. The role of T cells in psoriasis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2003; 17:257-70.
16. Meese PJ, Goffe BS, Metz J, VanderStoep A, Finck B, Burge DJ. Etanorcept in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis: A randomised trial. Lancet 2000;356:385-90.
17. Mease PJ, Kivftz AJ, Burch FX et al. Etanercept treatment of psorlatic arthritis: Safety, efficacy, and effect on disease progression. Arthritis Rheum 2004;50:2264-72.
18. Antoni C, Kavanaugh A, Kirkham B et al. Sustained benefits of infliximab therapy for dermatologic and articular manifestations of psoriatic arthritis: Results from the Infliximab Multinational Psoriatic Arthritis Controlled Trial (IMPACT). Arthritis Rheum 2005;52:1227-36.
19. Wong JB, Singh G, Kavanaugh A. Estimating the cost-effectiveness of 54 weeks of infliximab for rheumatoid arthritis. Am J Mod 2002;113:400-8.
20. Kobelt G, Jonsson L, Young A, Eberhardt K. The cost-effectiveness of infliximab (remicade) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in Sweden and the United Kingdom based on the ATTRACT study. Rheumatology 2003,42;326-35.
21. Brennan A, Bansback NJ, Reynolds A, Conway P. Modelling the cost-effectveness of etanercept in adults with rheumatoid arthritis in the UK. Rheumatology 2004;43:62-72.
22. Bansback NJ, Brennan A, Ghatnekar O. Cost-effectiveness of adalimumab in the treatment of patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis in Sweden. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:995-1002.
23. Bansback NJ, Ara R. Barkham N et al. Estimating the cost and health status consequences of treatment with TNF antagonists in patients with psoriatic arthritis. Rheumatology 2006;45:1029-38.
24. Briggs A, Goereg R, Blackhouse G, O'Brien B. Probabilistic analysis of cost-effectiveness models: Choosing between treatment strategies for gastrossophageal reflux disease. Med Decis Making 2002;33:290-308.
25. Claxton K, Sculpher M, McCabe C et al. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: Not an optional extra. Health Econ 2005;14:339-47.
26. Woolacott N, Bravo Vergel Y, Hawkins N et al. Etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis. Health Technol Asses 2006;10, no. 31.
27. Schering-Plough Lld.Remicade [Infliximalb: Summary of product characteristics]. London: Electronic Medicines Compendium, 2005.
28. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals.Enbrel [etanercept: Summary of product characteristics] Electronic Medicines Compendium, 2004.
29. Kyle S, Chandler D, Griffiths C et al. Guideline for anti-TNFα therapy in psoriatic arthritis. Rheumatology 2005;44:390-7.
30. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Technical guidance for manufacturers and sponsors on malting a submission to a Technology Appraisal. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2001.
31. Briggs A, Sculpher M. An introduction to Markov modelling for economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13:397-409.
32. Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Mad 2004;23:3105-24.
33. Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JPT. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments; combining direct and indirect evidence. Br Med J 2005;331;897-900.
34. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals. An appraisal submission for the National Institute for Clinical Exellence: Etanercept (ENBREL). To establish the clinical and cost effectiveness of the use of etanercept for the treatment of active and progressive psoriatic arthritis in patents who have inadequate response to standard treatment (including disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy). Maidenhead, 2004.
35. Geborek P, Cmkic M, Petersson IF, Saxne T. South Swedish Arthritis Treatment Group. Etanercept, infliximab, and leflunomide in established rheumatoid arthritis: Clinical experience using a structured follow up programme in southern Sweden. Ann Rheum Dis 2002;61:793-8.
36. Government Actuary's Department. Interim life tables 2001-2003. London: Government Actuary's Department.
37. Kobelt G, Jonsson L, Lindgren R, Young A, Eberhardt K. Modelling the progression of rheumatoid arthritis: A two-century model to estimate costs and consequences of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2002;46:2310-9.
38. British Medical, Association. British National Formulary, No. 46. London: British Medical Association, 2003.
39. Department of Health. NHS Reference costs 2004. www.dh.gov.uk.
40. Curtis L, Netten A. Unit costs of health and social care 2004 (PSSRU). University of Kent, Kent, 2004. www.pssru.ac.uk.
41. Johannabson M, Weinstein S. On the decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ 1993;12:459-67.
42. Spiagelhalter DJ, Thomas A, Best NG, Lunn D. WinBUGS user manual: version 1.4. Cambridge; MRC Biostabstic Unit, 2001.
43. Raftery J. NICE: Faster access to modern treatments? Analysis of guidance on health technologies. Brit Med J 2001;323:1300-3.
44. Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: A decision making approach to the stochastic evaluation of heallh care technologies. J Health Econ 1999;18:341-64.
45. Claxton K, Ginelly L, Sculpher M et al. A pilot study on the use of decision theory and value of information analysis as part of the NHS Health Technology Assessment programme. Health Technol Assess 2004;8:1-103.
46. Claxton K, Sculpher M, Drummond M. A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Lancet 2002;360:711-5.
47. Symmons DPM, Barrett EM, Bankhead CR et al. The incidence of rheumatoid arthritis in the United Kingdom: Results from the Norfolk Arthritis Register. Br J Rheumatol 1994;33:735-9.
48. Bravo Vergel Y, Hawkins N, Asseburg C, Palmer S, Claxton K, Sculpher M, The cost-effectiveness and value of information associated with biologic drugs for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis. Poster presented at HEA, Barcelona, 2005: (Available at http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/che/staff/ yolanda.htm).
49. Etaneroept and infliximab for the treatment of adults with psoriatic arthritis. NICE technology appraisal guidance. (Available at http://guidance.nice.org.uk/TA104/niceguidance/pdf/English).