Cost-Effectiveness of Biologic Therapy vs. Triple Therapy for Rheumatoid Arthritis

Biologic therapy conferred a small clinical benefit, but at substantially higher cost.

The standard of care for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients who respond inadequately to initial methotrexate therapy is to add either an anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agent (i.e., a biologic) or sulfasalazine plus hydroxychloroquine (i.e., triple therapy). Despite evidence that these strategies yield similar responses, only 2.5% of RA patients are given triple therapy with nonbiologics before a biologic.

In this cost-effectiveness analysis, researchers used data from a randomized trial that yielded similar outcomes for these two strategies in 353 RA patients (NEJM JW Gen Med Aug 15 2013 and N Engl J Med 2013; 369:307). Biologic therapy resulted in 0.15 additional lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), at an additional cost of about…

Reviewing Author

Jonathan S. Coblyn, MD

Disclosures

Consultant / Advisory BoardCVS Health

Editorial BoardsUpToDate

Jonathan S. Coblyn, MD

Disclosures

Consultant / Advisory BoardCVS Health

Editorial BoardsUpToDate

Cost-Effectiveness of Biologic Therapy vs. Triple Therapy for Rheumatoid Arthritis

Topics

Reviewing Author