VP53 Cost-Utility Analysis: Adalimumab Verus Etanercept in Rheumatoid Arthritis – Brazil

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an inflammatory, autoimmune disease of unknown etiology that usually results in joint lesions and physical incapacitation. RA treatment includes disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD), synthetic (sDMARD) and/or biologics (bDMARD). In this study we carried out a cost-utility analysis comparing Adalimumab (ADA) versus Etanercept (ETA), with or without synthetic DMARDs (± sDMARD).METHODS:Effectiveness measures used were the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY) obtained from an open prospective cohort study with Brazilian RA patients. Costs were obtained from a historical cohort composed of every patient who was prescribed medicines to treat RA in the State of Minas Gerais, Brazil. A public sector perspective was adopted. The Markov model included six-month cycles, time horizon of 5 years and 5 percent discount rates. Sensitivity analyses were performed by varying costs and outcome values.RESULTS:There was no significant difference in effectiveness between the two bDMARDs. Treatment with ETA (± sDMARD) was more expensive after 5 years of follow-up: incremental cost of USD28,210.87. Overall, treatment with ADA (± sDMARD) was more cost-effective: incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ETA (± sDMARD) was USD79,148.34/ QALY. Sensitivity analysis showed that this was sensitive to changes in the cost of ETA (± sDMARD).CONCLUSIONS:Currently two Anti-tumour Necrosis Factor Alpha (anti-TNF alpha) medicines – ADA and ETA are available within the Brazilian public health system in addition to infliximab. Treatment with ADA (±sDMARD) was more cost-effective with an incremental cost effectiveness ratio for ETA (±sDMARD) at USD79,148.34 per QALY. Sensitivity analysis showed that outcomes are sensitive to changes in the cost of ETA (± sDMARD) treatment. Overall, both therapeutic alternatives are valuable from the public sector perspective especially when the Clinical Protocol and Therapeutic Guidelines are properly applied in patients no longer responding to treatment. Alternatives are needed as some patients will respond differently to different anti-TNF alpha medicines.