Clinical and economic evaluation of the use of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and targeted synthetic antirheumatic drugs for ankylosing spondylitis in context of the Russian healthcare system

Abstract

Objective: clinical and economic evaluation of the use of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs), Janus kinase inhibitors (iJAK), for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS).Patients and methods. Among comparison technologies for further analysis were included: adalimumab (ADA), golimumab (GLM), ixekizumab (IXE), secukinumab (SEC), tofacitinib (TOFA), certolizumab pegol (CZP), upadacitinib (UPA), etanercept (ETC). The efficacy and safety of the bDMARDs and tsDMARDs included in the study were evaluated based on the results of a systematic search and analysis of data on the comparative clinical efficacy and safety of their use. Any phase III randomized controlled trials of drugs used to treat active AS in adults (age ≥18) were considered as an investigational treatment versus placebo or versus another active drug. Analysis of the economic consequences of the use of bDMARDs and tsDMARDs for AS treatment was carried out only taking into account drug therapy. For the clinical and economic evaluation of the use of bDMARDs and tsDMARDs, the cost minimization indicator was calculated. As a criterion for clinical and economic efficiency and for the analysis of the impact on the budget, the cost per responder (CpR) indicator was estimated, which was calculated based on the cost of treating AS by the time the response was achieved according to the ASAS20/40 criteria and BASDAI50.Results and discussion. The results of the meta-analysis indicated a greater effectiveness of bDMARDs and iJAK compared with placebo in terms of the frequency of achieving ASAS 20/40, BASDAI 50 criteria. From an economic point of view, compared with the reference (minimum) value (ETC biosimilar, Erelzi®), the difference in the treatment cost of 1 patient with AS during the year varied widely (from +4.22 to +40.29%) and depended on the selected therapy option. At the same time, UPA 15 mg was characterized by the lowest cost of a course of treatment in the first year among original drugs. Among the original drugs, the lowest CpR values before reaching the ASAS20 criterion were in ADA (380,986.58 rubles), ETC (426,868.81 rubles), GLM (559,619.28 rubles) and UPA 15 mg (582,003.89 rub.), according to the ASAS40 criterion – for ADA (534,518.49 rubles.), ETC (726,347.45 rubles) and UPA 15 mg (557,753.73 rubles), according to the BASDAI50 criterion – for ADA (488,911.11 rubles), ETC (636,386.99 rubles) and UPA 15 mg (640,204.28 rubles).Conclusion. The study confirmed the clinical and economic feasibility of using various options for treatment of AS in real practice, including bDMARDs and iJAK. At the same time, the use of original drugs is not always associated with significant costs per 1 patient who responded to treatment. The creation of full-fledged patient registries will make it possible to introduce a system for monitoring clinical outcomes depending on the chosen treatment strategy, as well as smooth out the assumptions and limitations that are used in the study of the clinical and economic aspects of medical technologies, which will save resources and increase the availability of drugs for patients with rheumatic diseases.