IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v38y2020i1d10.1007_s40273-019-00829-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Budget Impact and Cost Per Additional Responder Analysis for Baricitinib for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis in Patients with an Inadequate Response to Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in the USA

Author

Listed:
  • Elizabeth Wehler

    (IQVIA)

  • Natalie Boytsov

    (Eli Lilly and Company, Lilly Corporate Center)

  • Claudia Nicolay

    (Lilly Deutschland GmbH)

  • Oscar Herrera-Restrepo

    (IQVIA)

  • Stacey Kowal

    (IQVIA)

Abstract

Background/Objective Baricitinib is a selective and reversible Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor indicated for the treatment of adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have had an inadequate response to one or more tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) and has been shown to improve multiple clinical and patient-reported outcomes. However, it is unclear what the budgetary impact would be for US commercial payers to add baricitinib to their formulary and how the efficacy of baricitinib compares to other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) with a similar indication. Methods A budget impact model (BIM) was developed for a hypothetical population of 1 million plan members that compared a world without and with baricitinib. A retrospective observational study was carried out to estimate market utilization of advanced therapies. Number needed to treat (NNT) and cost per additional responder were calculated for American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20%/50%/70% improvement criteria (ACR20/50/70) response outcomes combining cost estimates from the BIM and efficacy values from a network meta-analysis (NMA). The model included costs related to drug acquisition and monitoring costs. Results Adding baricitinib would save a commercial payer $US169,742 for second-line therapy and $US135,471 for third-line therapy over a 2-year time horizon (all costs correspond to 2019 US dollars). Cost savings were driven by baricitinib drawing market share away from more expensive comparators. The NMA, based on nine studies, found no statistically significant differences in the median treatment difference between baricitinib and comparators except for versus a conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD), and thus NNT versus a csDMARD was similar. The cost per additional responder for baricitinib in patients with inadequate response to a TNFi was substantially lower than all other treatments for all three ACR response criteria at 12 weeks (ACR20: $US129,672; ACR50: $US237,732; ACR70: $US475,464), and among the lowest at 24 weeks (ACR20: $US167,811; ACR50: $US259,344; ACR70: $US570,557). Conclusions Baricitinib, compared to other DMARDs, was a less expensive option (− $US0.01 incremental cost per member per month in second- and third-line therapy over a 2-year time horizon) with comparable efficacy in patients with inadequate response to TNFi. Adding baricitinib to formulary would likely be cost saving for US payers and expands treatment options for these patients.

Suggested Citation

  • Elizabeth Wehler & Natalie Boytsov & Claudia Nicolay & Oscar Herrera-Restrepo & Stacey Kowal, 2020. "A Budget Impact and Cost Per Additional Responder Analysis for Baricitinib for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis in Patients with an Inadequate Response to Tumor Necrosis Factor," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 39-56, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:38:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s40273-019-00829-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-019-00829-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-019-00829-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-019-00829-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ejis, 2017. "Table of Contents," European Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, Bucharest Economic Academy, issue 01, March.
    2. Ejis, 2018. "Table of Contents," European Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, Bucharest Economic Academy, issue 02, June.
    3. Ejis, 2017. "Table of Contents," European Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, Bucharest Economic Academy, issue 02, June.
    4. Ejis, 2018. "Table of Contents," European Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, Bucharest Economic Academy, issue 01, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marcella Alsan & Sarah Eichmeyer, 2024. "Experimental Evidence on the Effectiveness of Nonexperts for Improving Vaccine Demand," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 16(1), pages 394-414, February.
    2. Michelle Tew & Philip Clarke & Karin Thursky & Kim Dalziel, 2019. "Incorporating Future Medical Costs: Impact on Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Cancer Patients," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(7), pages 931-941, July.
    3. Helen Lee & Sarah Shea Crowne & Melanie Estarziau & Keith Kranker & Charles Michalopoulos & Anne Warren & Tod Mijanovich & Jill H. Filene & Anne Duggan & Virginia Knox, "undated". "The Effects of Home Visiting on Prenatal Health, Birth Outcomes, and Health Care Use in the First Year of Life: Final Implementation and Impact Findings from the Mother and Infant Home Visiting Progra," Mathematica Policy Research Reports a9626a8d90bf4f01811d0c9d7, Mathematica Policy Research.
    4. A. Portansky P. & А. Портанский П., 2017. "О перспективах мегарегиональных торговых соглашений // About the Prospects of Megaregional Trade Agreements," Мир новой экономики // The world of new economy, Финансовый университет при Правительстве Российской Федерации // Financial University under The Governtment оf The Russian Federation, issue 3, pages 47-53.
    5. David E. Allen & Michael McAleer, 2019. "Fake News and Propaganda: Trump’s Democratic America and Hitler’s National Socialist (Nazi) Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-19, September.
    6. Syed Afroz Keramat & Khorshed Alam & Jeff Gow & Stuart J H Biddle, 2020. "Gender differences in the longitudinal association between obesity, and disability with workplace absenteeism in the Australian working population," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-14, May.
    7. Anders Peder Højer Karlsen & Mik Wetterslev & Signe Elisa Hansen & Morten Sejer Hansen & Ole Mathiesen & Jørgen B Dahl, 2017. "Postoperative pain treatment after total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-53, March.
    8. Michelle Giles & Laura Graham & Jean Ball & Jennie King & Wendy Watts & Alison Harris & Christopher Oldmeadow & Rod Ling & Michelle Paul & Anthony O’Brien & Vicki Parker & John Wiggers & Maralyn Foure, 2020. "Implementation of a multifaceted nurse‐led intervention to reduce indwelling urinary catheter use in four Australian hospitals: A pre‐ and postintervention study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5-6), pages 872-886, March.
    9. Grytten, Jostein & Skau, Irene & Sørensen, Rune, 2020. "Who dies early? Education, mortality and causes of death in Norway," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 245(C).
    10. Dimitrios VALSAMIDIS & Dimosthenis PAPPAS & Vasilios FERELIS & Michael NIKOLAIDIS, 2018. "Best Strategies For The Ideal Business Model," Scientific Bulletin - Economic Sciences, University of Pitesti, vol. 17(1), pages 24-38.
    11. Karlsson, Ida & Rootzén, Johan & Johnsson, Filip, 2020. "Reaching net-zero carbon emissions in construction supply chains – Analysis of a Swedish road construction project," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    12. Nareen O. M. Salim & Adnan Mohsin Abdulazeez, 2021. "Human Diseases Detection Based On Machine Learning Algorithms: A Review," International Journal of Science and Business, IJSAB International, vol. 5(2), pages 102-113.
    13. Claire Greene & Scott Schuh, 2017. "The 2016 Diary of Consumer Payment Choice," Research Data Report 17-7, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
    14. Nikolaj Kaae Kirk & Clara Navarrete & Jakob Ellegaard Juhl & José Luis Martínez & Alessandra Procentese, 2021. "The “Zero Miles Product” Concept Applied to Biofuel Production: A Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-19, January.
    15. Adam Lulek, 2019. "Information on environmental protection and annual reports of oil companies," Ekonomia i Prawo, Uniwersytet Mikolaja Kopernika, vol. 18(4), pages 475-486, December.
    16. Meier, Armando N. & Levav, Jonathan & Meier, Stephan, 2020. "Early Release and Recidivism," IZA Discussion Papers 13035, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Alves, Luís & Holz, Laura I.V. & Fernandes, Celina & Ribeirinha, Paulo & Mendes, Diogo & Fagg, Duncan P. & Mendes, Adélio, 2022. "A comprehensive review of NOx and N2O mitigation from industrial streams," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    18. Burcu KAYA ERDEM & Rukiye CİVAN KEMİKSİZ, 2020. "Çevrimiçi Dönüşümün Mesleki Tezahürü: E-Spor Faaliyetleriyle “Dijital Oyuncular Kuşağı”," Journal of Economy Culture and Society, Istanbul University, Faculty of Economics, vol. 0(1), pages 1-40, September.
    19. Luiz Oliveira & Joel J. P. C. Rodrigues & Sergei A. Kozlov & Ricardo A. L. Rabêlo & Victor Hugo C. de Albuquerque, 2019. "MAC Layer Protocols for Internet of Things: A Survey," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-42, January.
    20. Ida Karlsson & Johan Rootzén & Alla Toktarova & Mikael Odenberger & Filip Johnsson & Lisa Göransson, 2020. "Roadmap for Decarbonization of the Building and Construction Industry—A Supply Chain Analysis Including Primary Production of Steel and Cement," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-40, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:38:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s40273-019-00829-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.