Cost-effectiveness modeling of abatacept versus other biologic agents in DMARDS and anti-TNF inadequate responders for the management of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis

34Citations
Citations of this article
39Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

To assess the cost-effectiveness of abatacept compared to different biologic treatment strategies for moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis based on current medical practices in Canada. A model was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of various biologic treatments over a 2-year time horizon, using two effectiveness endpoints: "low disease activity state" (LDAS) and "remission". Abatacept, as first biologic agent after an inadequate response to DMARDs, provides greater treatment success rate for achieving LDAS (29.4% versus 15.6%) and remission (14.8% versus 5.2%), and appears significantly more cost-effective compared to the sequential use of anti-TNF agents (p <0.001). Abatacept, as second biologic agent after an inadequate response to one anti-TNF agent, provides greater treatment success rate for achieving LDAS (17.1% versus 10.2%) and remission (7.4% versus 3.9%) and appears significantly more cost-effective compared to the sequential use of anti-TNF agents (p<0.001). Abatacept is a cost-effective strategy in patients with an inadequate response to DMARDs or to one anti-TNF agent. © Clinical Rheumatology 2008.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Russell, A., Beresniak, A., Bessette, L., Haraoui, B., Rahman, P., Thorne, C., … Dupont, D. (2009). Cost-effectiveness modeling of abatacept versus other biologic agents in DMARDS and anti-TNF inadequate responders for the management of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis. Clinical Rheumatology, 28(4), 403–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-008-1060-4

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free