Economics of Stratified Medicine in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Current Rheumatology Reports

Volumn 16, Issue 12, 2014, Pages

  Gavan, Sean ^a   Harrison, Mark ^b   Iglesias, Cynthia ^c   Barton, Anne ^a   Manca, Andrea ^c   Payne, Katherine ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Economic evaluation; Rheumatoid arthritis; Stated preference; Stratified medicine

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICINE; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; GENETIC SCREENING; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; REVIEW; RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; RISK REDUCTION; STRATIFIED MEDICINE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TREATMENT RESPONSE; ARTHRITIS, RHEUMATOID; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS;

ANTIRHEUMATIC AGENT;

ANTIRHEUMATIC AGENTS; ARTHRITIS, RHEUMATOID; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HUMANS;

EID: 84920272404     PISSN: 15233774     EISSN: 15346307     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11926-014-0468-x     Document Type: Review

References (55)

1. Redekop KW, Mladsi D. The faces of personalized medicine: a framework for understanding its meaning and scope. Value Health. 2013;16(6):S4–9. This paper offers a framework for understanding the concept of personalised medicine.
2. Schleidgen S, Klinger C, Bertram T, Rogowski WH, Marckmann G. What is personalized medicine: sharpening a vague term based on a systematic literature review. BMC Med Ethics. 2013;14(55):1–12.
3. Jayakumar K, Norton S, Dixey J, James D, Gough A, Williams P, et al. Sustained clinical remission in rheumatoid arthritis: prevalence and prognostic factors in an inception cohort of patients treated with conventional DMARDS. Rheumatol. 2012;51(1):169–75.
4. Scirè CA, Verstappen SM, Mirjafari H, Bunn DK, Lunt M, Montecucco C, et al. Reduction of long-term disability in inflammatory polyarthritis by early and persistent suppression of joint inflammation: results from the Norfolk Arthritis Register. Arthritis Care Res. 2011;63(7):945–52.
5. Nikiphorou E, Guh D, Bansback N, Zhang W, Dixey J, Williams P, et al. Work disability rates in RA. Results from an inception cohort with 24 years follow-up. Rheumatol. 2012;51(2):385–92.
6. Smolen J et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69(6):964–75.
7. National Collaborating Centre for Chronic Conditions. Rheumatoid arthritis: national clinical guideline for management and treatment in adults. London: Royal College of Physicians; 2009.
8. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab and Abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis after the failure of a TNF inhibitor. NICE Technol Apprais 195. London: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2010.
9. Smolen JS, Aletaha D, Bijlsma JWJ, et al. Treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: recommendations of an international task force. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69(4):631–7.
10. Littman BH. Translational strategies to implement personalized medicine: rheumatoid arthritis examples. Pers Med. 2009;6(4):429–37.
11. Isaacs JD, Ferracciolo G. The need for personalised medicine for rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70(1):4–7. This paper summarises some of the key approaches to personalised medicine in RA.
12. Hughes LB, Danila MI, Bridges SL. Recent advances in personalizing rheumatoid arthritis therapy and management. Pers Med. 2009;6(2):159–70.
13. Ranganathan P. Pharmacogenomics of tumor necrosis factor antagonists in rheumatoid arthritis. Pharmacogenomics. 2005;6(5):481–90.
14. Faulkner E, Annemans L, Garrison L, et al. Challenges in the development and reimbursement of personalized medicine: payer and manufacturer perspectives and implications for health outcomes and economics research: a report of the ISPOR personalized medicine special interest group. Value Health. 2012;15(8):1162–71.
15. de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21(2):145–72.
16. Beaulieu M, de Denus S, Lachaine J. Systematic review of pharmacoeconomic studies of pharmacogenomic tests. Pharmacogenomics. 2010;11(11):1573–90.
17. Carlson JJ, Henrikson NB, Veenstra DL, Ramsey SD. Economic analyses of human genetics services: a systematic review. Genet Med. 2005;7(8):519–23.
18. Djalalov S, Musa Z, Mendelson M, Siminovitch K, Hoch J. A review of economic evaluations of genetic testing services and interventions (2004–2009). Genet Med. 2011;13(2):89–94.
19. Giacomini M, Miller F, O’Brien B. Economic considerations for health insurance coverage of emerging genetic tests. Community Genet. 2003;6(2):61–73.
20. Hatz MH, Schremser K, Rogowski WH. Is individualized medicine more cost-effective? A systematic review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(5):443–55.
21. Jarrett J, Mugford M. Genetic health technology and economic evaluation: a critical review. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2006;5(1):27–35.
22. Phillips KA, van Bebber SL. A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of pharmacogenomic interventions. Pharmacogenomics. 2004;5(8):1139–49.
23. Phillips KA, Ann Sakowski J, Trosman J, Douglas MP, Liang SY, Neumann P. The economic value of personalized medicine tests: what we know and what we need to know. Genet Med. 2014;16(3):251–7. This paper is the most recent previous systematic review of economic evaluations of personalised medicine.
24. Rogowski W. Genetic screening by DNA technology: a systematic review of health economic evidence. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22(3):327–37.
25. Vegter S, Boersma C, Rozenbaum M, Wilffert B, Navis G, Postma M. Pharmacoeconomic evaluations of pharmacogenetic and genomic screening programmes: a systematic review on content and adherence to guidelines. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(7):569–87.
26. Vegter S, Jansen E, Postma MJ, Boersma C. Economic evaluations of pharmacogenetic and genomic screening programs: update of the literature. Drug Dev Res. 2010;71(8):492–501.
27. Wong WB, Carlson JJ, Thariani R, Veenstra DL. Cost effectiveness of pharmacogenomics: a critical and systematic review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(11):1001–13.
28. Harrison M, Rigby D, Vass C, Flynn T, Louviere J, Payne K. Risk as an attribute in discrete choice experiments: a systematic review of the literature. Patient. 2014;7(2):151–70.
29. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
30. Benucci M, Saviola G, Baiardi P, Manfredi M. Cost-effectiveness treatment with rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in real life. Rheumatol Int. 2011;31(11):1465–9.
31. Hoving J, Bartelds GM, Sluiter JK, Sadiraj K, Groot I, Lems WF, et al. Perceived work ability, quality of life, and fatigue in patients with rheumatoid arthritis after a 6-month course of TNF inhibitors: prospective intervention study and partial economic evaluation. Scand J Rheumatol. 2009;38(4):246–50.
32. Kobelt G, Eberhardt K, Geborek P. TNF inhibitors in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice: costs and outcomes in a follow up study of patients with RA treated with etanercept or infliximab in southern Sweden. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004;63(1):4–10.
33. Virkki LM, Konttinen YT, Peltomaa R, Suontama K, Saario R, Immonen K, et al. Cost-effectiveness of infliximab in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2008;26(6):1059–66.
34. Davey PJ, Meyer E. The cost effectiveness of misoprostol prophylaxis alongside long term nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: implications of the MUCOSA trial. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17(3):295–304.
35. Bergquist SR, Felson DT, Prashker MJ, Freedberg KA. The cost-effectiveness of liver biopsy in rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with methotrexate. Arthritis Rheum. 1995;38(3):326–33.
36. Kim SK, Jun JB, El-Sohemy A, Bae SC. Cost-effectiveness analysis of MTHFR polymorphism screening by polymerase chain reaction in Korean patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving methotrexate. J Rheumatol. 2006;33(7):1266–74.
37. Konnopka A, Conrad K, Baerwald C, König HH. Cost effectiveness of the determination of autoantibodies against cyclic citrullinated peptide in the early diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2008;67(10):1399–405.
38. Kowada A. Cost effectiveness of interferon-gamma release assay for tuberculosis screening of rheumatoid arthritis patients prior to initiation of tumor necrosis factor-α antagonist therapy. Mol Diagn Ther. 2010;14(6):367–73.
39. Krieckaert CL, Nair SC, Nurmohamed MT, van Dongen CJ, Lems WF, Lafeber FP, et al. Personalised treatment using serum drug levels of adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: an evaluation of costs and effects. Ann Rheum Dis. 2013. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204101.
40. Marra CA, Esdaile JM, Anis AH. Practical pharmacogenetics: the cost effectiveness of screening for thiopurine s-methyltransferase polymorphisms in patients with rheumatological conditions treated with azathioprine. J Rheumatol. 2002;29(12):2507–12.
41. Oh KT, Anis AH, Bae SC. Pharmacoeconomic analysis of thiopurine methyltransferase polymorphism screening by polymerase chain reaction for treatment with azathioprine in Korea. Rheumatol. 2004;43(2):156–63.
42. Soloman DH, Kuntz KM. Should postmenopausal women with rheumatoid arthritis who are starting corticosteroid treatment be screened for osteoporosis? A cost-effectiveness analysis. Arthritis Rheum. 2000;43(9):1967–75.
43. Suter LG, Fraenkel L, Braithwaite RS. Cost-effectiveness of adding magnetic resonance imaging to rheumatoid arthritis management. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(7):657–67.
44. Thompson AJ, Newman WG, Elliott RA, Roberts SA, Tricker K, Payne K. The cost-effectiveness of a pharmacogenetic test: a trial-based evaluation of TPMT genotyping for azathioprine. Value Health. 2014;17(1):22–33.
45. Augustovski F, Beratarrechea A, Irazola V, Rubinstein F, Tesolin P, Gonzalez J, et al. Patient preferences for biologic agents in rheumatoid arthritis: a discrete-choice experiment. Value Health. 2013;16(2):385–93.
46. Constantinescu F, Goucher S, Weinstein A, Smith W, Fraenkel L. Understanding why rheumatoid arthritis patient treatment preferences differ by race. Arthritis Rheum. 2009;61(4):413–8.
47. Constantinescu F, Goucher S, Weinstein A, Fraenkel L. Racial disparities in treatment preferences for rheumatoid arthritis. Med Care. 2009;47(3):350–5.
48. Fraenkel L, Bogardus S, Concato J, Felson D, Wittink D. Patient preferences for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004;63(11):1372–8.
49. Kievit W, van Hulst L, van Riel P, Fraenkel L. Factors that influence rheumatologists’ decisions to escalate care in rheumatoid arthritis: results from a choice-based conjoint analysis. Arthritis Care Res. 2010;62(6):842–7.
50. Ozdemir S, Johnson FR, Hauber AB. Hypothetical bias, cheap talk, and stated willingness to pay for health care. J Health Econ. 2009;28(4):894–901.
51. Skjoldborg US, Lauridsen J, Junker P. Reliability of the discrete choice experiment at the input and output level in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Value Health. 2009;12(1):153–8.
52. Slothuus U, Larsen ML, Junker P. The contingent ranking method—a feasible and valid method when eliciting preferences for health care? Soc Sci Med. 2002;54(10):1601–9.
53. Karnon J. Alternative decision modelling techniques for the valuation of health care technologies: Markov processes versus discrete event simulation. Health Econ. 2003;12(10):837–48.
54. Karnon J, Stahl J, Brennan A, Caro JJ, Mar J, Möller J. Modeling using discrete event simulation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-4. Value Health. 2012;15(6):821–7.
55. Soares MO, Bojke L, Dumville J, Iglesias C, Cullum N, Claxton K. Methods to elicit experts’ beliefs over uncertain quantities: application to a cost effectiveness transition model of negative pressure wound therapy for severe pressure ulceration. Stat Med. 2011;30(19):2363–80.