Skip to main content
NCBI home page
JAMA Network logoLink to JAMA Network
. 2024 Jun 26;7(6):e2418800. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.18800

Cost-Effectiveness of Biosimilars vs Leflunomide in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis

Kuan Peng 1,2, Shirley C W Chan 1, Yang Wang 3, Franco W T Cheng 2, Winnie W Y Yeung 1, Yuanshi Jiao 1, Esther W Y Chan 2,4, Ian C K Wong 2,4,5, Chak-Sing Lau 1, Xue Li 1,2,4,✉
PMCID: PMC11208978  PMID: 38922614

Key Points

Question

Among patients with rheumatoid arthritis who have inadequate response to methotrexate, is the treatment sequence initiated with biosimilar disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) cost-effective compared with leflunomide?

Findings

In this economic evaluation of 25 099 patients with rheumatoid arthritis, both base-case and sensitivity analyses found that treatment sequences initiated with biosimilar DMARDs were cost-effective compared with leflunomide.

Meaning

These findings suggest the need to update clinical treatment guidelines for initiating biosimilars immediately after the failure of methotrexate for patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

This economic evaluation examines the cost-effectiveness of the rheumatoid arthritis treatment sequence initiated with biosimilar disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) after failure with methotrexate vs leflunomide.

Abstract

Importance

Among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate response to methotrexate, a treatment sequence initiated with biosimilar disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) provides better clinical efficacy compared with conventional synthetic DMARDs recommended by current treatment guidelines; but its cost-effectiveness evidence remains unclear.

Objective

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the treatment sequence initiated with biosimilar DMARDs after failure with methotrexate vs leflunomide and inform formulary listing decisions.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This economic evaluation’s cost-effectiveness analysis was performed at a Hong Kong public institution using the Markov disease transition model to simulate the lifetime disease progression and cost for patients with RA, using monetary value in 2022. Scenario and sensitivity analyses were performed to test the internal validity of the modeling conclusion. Participants included patients diagnosed with RA from 2000 to 2021 who were retrieved retrospectively from local electronic medical records to generate model input parameters. Statistical analysis was performed from January 2023 to March 2024.

Interventions

The model assesses 3 competing treatment sequences initiated with biosimilar infliximab (CT-P13), biosimilar adalimumab (ABP-501), and leflunomide; all used in combination with methotrexate.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Lifetime health care cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of the simulated cohort.

Results

In total, 25 099 patients with RA were identified (mean [SD] age, 56 [17] years; 19 469 [72.7%] women). In the base-case analysis, the lifetime health care cost and QALYs for the treatment sequence initiated with leflunomide were US $154 632 and 14.82 QALYs, respectively; for biosimilar infliximab, they were US $152 326 and 15.35 QALYs, respectively; and for biosimilar adalimumab, they were US $145 419 and 15.55 QALYs, respectively. Both biosimilar sequences presented lower costs and greater QALYs than the leflunomide sequence. In the deterministic sensitivity analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (US$/QALY) comparing biosimilar infliximab sequence vs leflunomide sequence and biosimilar adalimumab sequence vs leflunomide sequence ranged from −15 797 to −8615 and −9088 to 10 238, respectively, all below the predefined willingness-to-pay threshold (US $48 555/QALY gain). In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability of treatment sequence initiated with leflunomide, biosimilar infliximab, and biosmilar adalimumab being cost-effective out of 10 000 iterations was 0%, 9%, and 91%, respectively.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this economic evaluation study, the treatment sequences initiated with biosimilar DMARDs were cost-effective compared with the treatment sequence initiated with leflunomide in managing patients with RA who experienced failure with the initial methotrexate treatment. These results suggest the need to update clinical treatment guidelines for initiating biosimilars immediately after the failure of methotrexate for patients with RA.

Introduction

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a highly prevalent inflammatory joint disease leading to permanent joint destruction and physical and mental impairment.1 Methotrexate has long been the anchor drug for treating RA, given its promising clinical efficacy, safety, and modest treatment cost. However, more than 50% of patients with RA would experience failed methotrexate monotherapy due to inadequate response within 1 year.2 Current clinical guidelines recommend using several conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs, such as leflunomide, cyclosporine, and hydroxychloroquine) in combination with methotrexate for patients with inadequate methotrexate response in the absence of poor prognostic factors.3,4 If combination therapy with csDMARDs does not achieve the treatment goal, a combination of biological DMARDs (bDMARDs, such as infliximab, etanercept, and adalimumab) with methotrexate is recommended subsequently. However, recent evidence has suggested that initiating bDMARDs after the failure of methotrexate presents an improved clinical response rate and drug retention rate compared with csDMARDs in both clinical trials and clinical practice.5,6,7,8

A major barrier preventing the use of bDMARDs is the substantial drug cost associated with them.9 The cost-effectiveness of bDMARDs, indicating the trade-off between increased medication expenditure and the additional health benefit, is vital for public formulary enlisting and reimbursement decisions. Many studies have attempted to elucidate whether initiating bDMARDs after the failure of methotrexate is cost-effective compared with csDMARDs, where the conclusions were controversial and highly sensitive to the price of bDMARDs.10,11 Recently approved biosimilars share similar functions and structure to their reference biologics without meaningful clinical differences in efficacy and safety.12,13 Fifty-eight biosimilars have been approved in Europe, and the average price reduction ranges from 25% to 55%.14,15 Introducing biosimilars could improve the cost-effectiveness of bDMARDs by reducing medication costs. According to the latest public Drug Formulary in Hong Kong,16 neither the originators nor the biosimilars of bDMARDs were reimbursed for patients with inadequate methotrexate response (unless patients had fulfilled the local financial assistance program’s clinical and income eligibility requirements). Consequently, most patients were required to pay out of pocket, which led to considerable drug underuse. CT-P13 (biosimilar infliximab) and ABP-501 (biosimilar adalimumab) are 2 biosimilars approved in Hong Kong since 2020, with a price reduction range from 54% to 87% compared with their reference products. The substantial price reduction is expected to reshape the landscape of biosimilar use and indicate an opportunity to access bDMARDs directly after methotrexate failure. Therefore, we proposed this study to examine the cost-effectiveness of treatment sequences initiated with biosimilars infliximab or adalimumab vs frequently used leflunomide among patients with inadequate methotrexate response to inform biosimilar formulary enlisting decisions.

Methods

This economic evaluation was granted approval by the institutional review board of the University of Hong Kong/Hospital Authority Hong Kong West Cluster. Patient identification was all anonymized, so patient consent was not required. Methods and results were reported according to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) reporting guideline.17

Model Overview

We developed a multistate Markov transition model with a model structure referenced from Park et al.18 The model simulates the lifetime disease progression of 10 000 hypothetical patients with RA with inadequate methotrexate response from the perspective of the Hong Kong public health care institution. The treatment sequence of RA was adapted under the latest clinical guideline.4 Patients were initiated with leflunomide or biosimilar DMARDs as the first-line treatment after failure of methotrexate monotherapy, followed by tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) DMARDs, non-TNFi DMARDs, Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi), and supportive care in sequence (eFigure 1 in Supplement 1). All treatments were assumed to be administered in combination with methotrexate. Pharmacological components of bDMARDs, JAKi, and supportive care were extracted from the latest Hong Kong drug formulary.16 Treatment efficacies and costs of TNFi, non-TNFi, JAKi, and supportive care were weighted based on local market share (eTable 1 in Supplement 1).

Patients with inadequate methotrexate response entering the model would either remain on the initial treatment or switch to next-line treatment based on the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criterion at the end of the first cycle. Afterward, patients either continued to take the treatment or discontinued treatment and progressed through the treatment sequence until entry to the supportive care state (eFigure 1 in Supplement 1). Hypothetical patients were simulated to transit among health states at a cycle length of 6 months. Utilities and costs were discounted at an annual rate of 3.5%. Input parameters for the first-line treatment and subsequent treatments were described in Table 17,8,19,20 and eTable 3 in Supplement 1 separately.

Table 1. Model Input Parameters of First-Line Treatmenta.

Description Base case (SD) Range Distribution Source
Input parameters of transition probabilities
ACR response of the at first cycle, % of patients with ACR scores of 20/50/70
Biosimilar infliximab 73.4 (7.0)/42.7 (7.8)/20.2 (6.3) NA Dirichlet Yoo et al,19 2013
Biosimilar adalimumab 74.6 (7.0)/49.2 (8.1)/26 (7.1) NA Dirichlet Cohen et al,20 2017
Leflunomide 62.0 (4)/38.0 (4)/7.0 (2.1) NA Dirichlet Fleischmann et al,7 2014
Discontinuation probability other than first cycle of biosimilar or leflunomide, %
Biosimilar infliximab 15.4 (2.5) 12.8-18.4 β CDARS
Biosimilar adalimumab 12.9 (2.2) 10.7-15.4 β CDARS
Leflunomide 36.5 (9.1) 19.8-55.2 β Geborek et al,8 2002
Probability of pneumonia, %
Biosimilar infliximab 0.74 (0.56) 0.39-1.39 β CDARS
Biosimilar adalimumab 0.38 (0.33) 0.20-0.76 β CDARS
Probability of herpes zoster, %
Biosimilar infliximab 0.16 (0.45) 0.05-0.58 β CDARS
Biosimilar adalimumab 0.19 (0.27) 0.08-0.49 β CDARS
Probability of tuberculosis, %
Biosimilar infliximab 0.16 (0.45) 0.05-0.58 β CDARS
Biosimilar adalimumab 0.24 (0.27) 0.11-0.56 β CDARS
Probability of hepatitis B, %
Biosimilar infliximab 0 NA β CDARS
Biosimilar adalimumab 0.14 (0.27) 0.05-0.0042 β CDARS
Input parameters of HAQ-DI
Baseline HAQ-DI 1.6 (NA) 1.2-2.0 ±25% of Mean Yoo et al,19 2013
HAQ-DI changes in the first cycle of initiation of biosimilar or leflunomide
<ACR20b −0.16 (0.04) −0.25 to −0.09 γ Lee et al,21 2015
ACR20-50b −0.45 (0.1125) −0.70 to −0.26 γ Lee et al,21 2015
ACR50-70b −0.70 (0.175) −1.08 to −0.40 γ Lee et al,21 2015
≥ACR70b −1.02 (0.255) −1.58 to −0.58 γ Lee et al,21 2015
Input parameters of cost in 2022, US$
Drug acquisition cost (per cycle) NA NA NA NA
Biosimilar infliximab (3 mg/kg at weeks 0, 2, 6, and each 8 weeks)b
First cyclec 2792 (698) 1595-4317 γ HA
Subsequent cycle 1654 (414) 945-2557 γ HA
Biosimilar adalimumab (40 mg every other week subcutaneous)b 940 (235) 537-1453 γ HA
Leflunomide daily, 20 mgb 124 (31) 70-191 γ HA
Adverse event–related costs (per episode)
Pneumoniab 4983 (1246) 2848-7705 γ CDARS
Herpes zosterb 4546 (1137) 2598-7029 γ CDARS
Tuberculosisb 7043 (1761) 4025-10 890 γ CDARS
Hepatitis Bb 2471 (618) 1412-3820 γ CDARS
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: ACR, American College of Rheumatology; CDARS, Clinical Data Analysis and Reporting System; HA, Hospital Authority (Hong Kong); HAQ-DI, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index; NA, not applicable.

a

All treatments were used concomitantly with 15 mg methotrexate once weekly.

b

SDs were assumed to be 25% of mean.

c

Treatment with loading dose different from maintenance dose; the cost of first cycle and subsequent cycles were different.

The model was constructed in R version 4.1.1 (R Project for Statistical Computing) with package heemod.22 Model construction and input parameter generation were cross-checked independently by 3 coauthors (K.P., Y.W., and Y.S.J.) for quality control.

Patient Profile and Transition Probability

Local Electronic Medical Records Database

A territory-wide electronic medical records (EMR) database, the Clinical Data Analysis and Reporting System (CDARS), was adapted to generate input parameters from the real-world setting wherever suitable. CDARS was operated by the Hospital Authority, a statutory body that manages all public hospitals and clinics and is publicly accessible to all Hong Kong residents (7 million).23 A retrospective cohort of patients diagnosed with RA between 2000 and 2021 was retrieved from CDARS using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code (714.0). The RA cohort identified from CDARS was used to determine the patient’s baseline characteristics and market share of included treatments in 2022 (eTable 1 in Supplement 1).

Transitional Probability

We applied the ACR20 response rates as the clinical treatment target. Patients continued to take first-line treatment if they achieved the ACR20 criterion or above (ACR50/ACR70). Otherwise, they were switched to the next-line treatment. The ACR20 response rates of the first-line treatment were sourced from the landmark clinical trial.7,19,20 Discontinuation rate at the cycles other than the first cycle of first-line treatment and probability of adverse event occurrence during treatment were generated from the CDARS, with computation details provided in eTable 2 in Supplement 1. Baseline mortality rate was extracted from the Hong Kong life table.24 It was further multiplied by the risk adjustment factor, which is positively associated with the Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index (HAQ-DI) scores (adjusted mortality = general mortality × 1.33HAQ-DI).25,26 HAQ-DI is the most widely used measure of function and disability in patients with RA; the score ranges from 0 to 3, with a greater score indicating a worse disease condition.27

Utility

Utilities for health states across disease activity were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). We used the HAQ-DI as a proxy to generate the corresponding QALYs at each health state with the formula: QALY = 0.74 − 0.17 × HAQ-DI.28 HAQ-DI change was determined by the ACR criterion using individual level data derived from a published randomized clinical trial (RCT)21,29 for the first cycle of the first-line treatment. HAQ-DI improvements in other cycles were sourced from the efficacy at 6 months from the corresponding RCTs.29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43 HAQ-DI changes for TNFi treatment were classified into TNFi experienced and naïve group. HAQ-DI scores were assumed to be unchanged during treatment, given that no significant changes in the score were identified beyond the initial 6 months from the majority of RCTs.44

Disease condition was expected to deteriorate continuously for patients receiving supportive care. The HAQ-DI score changes were −0.04 and 0.2 in the first and second cycles, followed by 0.28 at every other cycle until it reached the upper bound of the HAQ-DI score.44 We assumed that patients’ HAQ-DI improvements would disappear upon treatment discontinuation, and the HAQ-DI score would bounce back to the beginning of the treatment.

Costs

Drug Acquisition Costs

Drug unit costs were extracted from the Hospital Authority Pharmacy Management System. We calculated the drug acquisition costs per treatment course based on recommended dosage and adjusted these to fit the cycle length of the Markov model.

Adverse Event–Related Costs

Four severe adverse events (pneumonia, herpes zoster, tuberculosis, hepatitis B) associated with bDMARDs or JAKi treatments resulting in hospitalization and substantial health care costs were considered in the model (eTable 4 in Supplement 1).

Supportive Care Nonpharmacological Costs

The cohort with supportive care was expected to receive additional treatment with intraarticular steroid injections every 6 months (up to twice in a lifetime) and visit a community-allied physiotherapy health service biweekly to mitigate the symptoms.45 All costs are presented in US dollars in 2022 (exchange rate was US $1 = HK $7.78 in 202246).

Statistical Analysis

Base-Case Analysis

Incremental costs, incremental QALY, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were computed by comparing treatment sequences initiated with biosimilar DMARDs vs leflunomide. ICERs were subsequently compared against a willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) of a 1-time gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in Hong Kong in 202247 (US $48 555 per QALY gain), according to the World Health Organization recommendation.48 Treatment sequences with ICERs below the WTP threshold were considered cost-effective.

Sensitivity Analyses

Deterministic sensitivity analysis was conducted by varying each parameter according to its 95% CI independently. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, all tested parameters were varied simultaneously with a predefined distribution for 10 000 iterations. For parameters where SDs were not available, we applied a 25% mean value as the SD for simulation. The cost-effective acceptability curve (CEAC) displayed the probability of each comparator being a cost-effective strategy within a range of WTP threshold (US $0-$80 000).

Scenario Analysis

We conducted several scenario analyses to capture the effect of parameter uncertainty and modeling structure on cost-effective conclusions. First, various mapping algorithms converting HAQ-DI score to utility were applied to eliminate bias from the algorithm selection.49 Second, we assessed the ICER variation regarding different model durations (5-40 years), discounting rates (0%-5%), and population baseline age (56 ± 5 years). In addition, a simplified treatment sequence where patients were initiated with receiving leflunomide or biosimilar DMARDs were followed by supportive care directly to reflect clinical practice, considering that no bDMARDs or JAKi were reimbursed by the public health care payer in Hong Kong.16 Last, in settings where the public health care payer does not cover physiotherapies, we removed nonpharmacological costs of supportive care.

Supplementary Cost Analysis From a Global Context

The unit cost of health care intervention was the most frequently cited cause of variation in economic evaluation across different contexts.50 Considering the marginal cost of leflunomide, the cost-effectiveness of the treatment sequence initiated with biosimilar DMARDs was largely driven by the price of biosimilars. In this supplement analysis, we used global infliximab sales data in July 2022 from the IQVIA Multinational Integrated Data Analysis System (IQVIA-MIDAS) database to depict the distribution of biosimilar infliximab prices globally. The database has been widely used in analyzing global pharmaceutical sales and costs trend.51,52 We select infliximab and its biosimilars given their considerable global sales and broader market availability.53 Countries with at least 1 biosimilar infliximab on sale in July 2022 were included in the analysis. Countries were further stratified by income level according to World Bank income classifications.54 Statistical analysis was performed using R version 4.1.1 (R Project for Statistical Computing) from January 2023 to March 2024

Results

Base-Case Analysis

In total, 25 099 patients with RA were identified (mean [SD] age: 56 [17] years; 19 469 women [72.7%] and 5630 men [27.3%]) (eTable 1 in Supplement 1)]. For leflunomide, the lifetime health care costs and QALYs for were US $154 632 and 14.82 QALYs, respectively; for biosimilar infliximab, they were US $152 326 and 15.35 QALYs, respectively, and for biosimilar adalimumab, they were US $145 419 and 15.55 QALYs, respectively (Table 2). Both treatment sequences initiated with biosimilar DMARDs demonstrated lower costs and greater QALYs compared with treatment sequence initiated with leflunomide. Biosimilar infliximab was associated with greater health care costs (US $6907) but a lower QALY gain (−0.20) compared with biosimilar adalimumab.

Table 2. Base-Case Results.

Strategy Cost, US$a QALY ICER (US$/QALY)a
Net Incremental Net Incremental
Leflunomide 154 632 Reference 14.82 Reference Reference
Biosimilar infliximab 152 326 −2306 15.35 0.53 −4351
Biosimilar adalimumab 145 419 −9213 15.55 0.73 −12 621
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: ICER, Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; QALY, quality-adjusted life-year.

a

The exchange rate was US $1 = HK $7.78 in 2022.

Sensitivity Analyses

The top 10 parameters identified from the deterministic sensitivity analysis with the greatest effect on ICER ranges were presented in tornado diagrams in descending order (eFigures 2, 3, and 4 in Supplement 1). The ICER range (USD/QALY) was −$9088 to $10 238 for comparison pair biosimilar infliximab vs leflunomide; −$15 797 to −$8615 for biosimilar adalimumab vs leflunomide; and −$108 903 to −$21 333 for biosimilar adalimumab vs biosimilar infliximab. Varying all parameters independently over a predefined range, the corresponding ICERs were consistently lower than the WTP threshold of US $48 555/QALY gain. The cost-effectiveness conclusion remains unchanged in the deterministic sensitivity analysis. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability of treatment sequences initiated with leflunomide, biosimilar infliximab, and biosimilar adalimumab being a cost-effective strategy out of 10 000 iterations was 0%, 9%, and 91% at the predefined WTP threshold (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Probability Sensitivity Analysis.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

A, Results of 10 000 iterations of the Monte Carlo simulation for biosimilar adalimumab (ABP-501), biosimilar infliximab (CT-P13), and leflunomide. B, Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve of biosimilar adalimumab, biosimilar infliximab, and leflunomide given the willingness to pay threshold of US $48 555/QALY gain. QALY indicates quality-adjusted life-year.

Scenario Analysis

Both biosimilar infliximab and biosimilar adalimumab remained a cost-effective alternative to leflunomide when changing the mapping algorithm of HAQ-DI, model simulation time, cohort starting age, discounting rate, treatment sequence, or ignoring nonpharmacological costs of supportive care (Figure 2). The numerical results of scenario analysis were presented in eTable 5 in Supplement 1.

Figure 2. Scenario Analysis Varying Converting Formula and Model Structure.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

HAQ indicates Health Assessment Questionnaire; QALY, quality-adjusted life-year.

Cost of Biosimilar From a Global Context

We identified 41 countries with recorded sales data of biosimilar infliximab in July 2022 from the IQVIA-MIDAS database (Figure 3). Biosimilar infliximab was identified in 28 high-income countries (median cost: US $10.46/daily defined dose [DDD]); 10 upper middle-income countries (median cost: US $7.37/DDD); and 3 lower middle-income countries (median cost: US $10.51/DDD). We identified 15 out of the 28 high-income countries that have a similar level of economic development as Hong Kong and lower unit price of biosimilar infliximab (eTable 6 in Supplement 1).

Figure 3. Global Price of Biosimilar Infliximab in July 2022.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

DDD indicates daily defined dose. Data in gray areas are not available in the IQVIA-MIDAS database.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first cost-effective analysis evaluating the treatment sequence initiated with biosimilar DMARDs after inadequate methotrexate response among patients with RA. Park et al18 found it is cost-effective to apply treatment sequence initiated with etanercept originator vs leflunomide with an ICER US $8050/QALY gain in Korea in 2016.18 While in the base-case result, we found that the treatment sequence initiated with biosimilar DMARDs was associated with improved QALY and reduced health care costs, leading to a negative ICER value. Two reasons could explain such disparity. First, the price difference between biosimilars and bio-originator was dramatic in Hong Kong (biosimilar adalimumab: US $940 vs adalimumab originator: US $7073 [87% reduction]; biosimilar infliximab: US $1654 vs infliximab originator: US $3609 [54% reduction]). Second, the cost of supportive care (US $2891 per course) in Hong Kong is much higher than the medication cost. Treatment sequence initiated with biosimilar DMARDs slow down disease progression, therefore reducing the time patients spend on supportive care and eventually lead to lower overall treatment costs.

Biological DMARDs underuse has been widely reported worldwide due to stringent reimbursement criteria, such as minimum disease duration and activity,55 where countries with high socioeconomic welfare tend to have more flexible criteria.56 Hong Kong is a highly developed economic entity ranked 19th among the major economies,57 yet its reimbursement for bDMARDs lags behind other Asian areas with comparable universal health coverage and economic levels such as Japan,58 Taiwan,59 and Korea,60 where at least 1 bDMARD is available after the failure of methotrexate. In the scenario analysis, the simplified treatment sequence resulted in rapid transition to supportive care state, ended up with substantial reduction in QALYs (biosimilar adalimumab decreased from 15.55 to 9.66; biosimilar infliximab decreased from 15.35 to 9.61; leflunomide decreased from 14.82 to 8.70). Although the incremental QALYs comparing biosimilar DMARDs vs leflunomide remain considerable (biosimilar adalimumab: 0.96, biosimilar infliximab: 0.91), Our findings suggest that under the premise of an acceptable budget and well-evaluated opportunity costs, Hong Kong’s local health care agencies should actively promote the inclusion of biosimilar DMARDs in the medical insurance catalog.

Our study has several merits. First, different from the clinical practice setting, RCT participants generally have better treatment compliance and limited follow-up time.61 We overcame the aforementioned deficiencies by generating input parameters from local electronic medical records wherever appropriate to reflect the real-world scenarios after the deployment of biosimilar DMARDs. Second, the current model incorporated treatment sequence by mode of action, instead of single drug alone, which is consistent with the clinical guideline recommendation. It reflects realistic clinical practice where patients can opt into receiving different drugs and thus improved the model’s generalizability to broader context. Third, we classified patients into TNFi experienced and naive groups to incorporate the influence of previous treatment exposure, which rendered a more accurate estimation of the efficacies of subsequent treatments.

Limitations

This study has limitations. In the absence of local evidence, treatment efficacies were mainly retrieved from independent RCTs with heterogeneity in patients’ demographic and clinical profiles. Also, we used results from landmark trials to generate the HAQ-DI improvements for the second- (TNFi), third- (non-TNFi), and fourth- (JAKi) line treatments in the model. However, in trial settings, the study population was mainly naive to bDMARDs or experienced only 1 bDMARD before recruiting. Treatment efficacy from trials was expected to be more prominent than our simulated patient cohort because the latter would experience multiple treatment failures with worse disease conditions.62 Therefore, applying HAQ-DI improvements from RCTs to the simulated cohort might overestimate the treatment efficacy. Nevertheless, the sensitivity and scenario analysis have indicated that the potential variation in these data did not affect the cost-effectiveness conclusion. Additionally, chronic inflammatory arthritis-induced disability is linked to loss of work capacity and early retirement.63 Prescribing patients with effective bDMARDs can improve patients’ work capacity64 for its higher remission rates and long-term quality of life compared with csDMARDs. Considering the monetary savings from retained employment and work capacity, we anticipate that our model underestimated the cost benefits of treatment sequence initiated with biosimilar DMARDs based on published cost-effectiveness studies that incorporated productivity loss.65,66

Although our study conclusion cannot be directly applied in other health care settings beyond Hong Kong due to the common drawback of system-specific health economic studies, the deterministic sensitivity analysis (eFigures 2 and 3 in Supplement 1) has indicated that the cost of biosimilar DMARDs was the primary driver of cost-effective conclusion. The supplement analysis from the global context showed that the unit cost of biosimilar infliximab in Hong Kong was higher than the median cost among high-income countries. Countries with a similar WTP threshold (assuming 1-unit GDP per capita as the WTP threshold) as Hong Kong,48 such as Australia, Norway, and Sweden, would likely benefit from using biosimilar DMARDs as the local market provides a lower price. The cost-effectiveness of treatment sequence initiated with biosimilar DMARDs in these jurisdictions is probable and worth further investigation.

Conclusions

From the Hong Kong Public institution perspective, treatment sequences initiated with biosimilar DMARDs were cost-effective compared with treatment sequence initiated with leflunomide among patients with RA and an inadequate methotrexate response. This study can serve to inform health care stakeholders, rheumatologists, and patients with the unmet needs of bDMARDs about the benefits and financial feasibility of biosimilar DMARDs.

Supplement 1.

eTable 1. Patients’ Demographics and Disease Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs Market Share in Hong Kong

eTable 2. Number of Patients Discontinue Treatment or Experience Adverse Events During Two Years Follow-Up

eTable 3. Model Input Parameters of Subsequent Treatments

eTable 4. Cost of Adverse Events per Episode

eTable 5. Numerical Results of Scenario Analysis

eTable 6. Price of Biosimilar Infliximab in July 2022

eFigure 1. Treatment Transition Pathway in the Markov Simulation Model

eFigure 2. Deterministic Sensitivity Analysis Comparing CT-P13 Against LEF

eFigure 3. Deterministic Sensitivity Analysis Comparing ABP-501 Against LEF

eFigure 4. Deterministic Sensitivity Analysis Comparing ABP-501 Against CT-P13

jamanetwopen-e2418800-s001.pdf (905.8KB, pdf)
Supplement 2.

Data Sharing Statement

jamanetwopen-e2418800-s002.pdf (13.2KB, pdf)

References

  • 1.Safiri S, Kolahi AA, Hoy D, et al. Global, regional and national burden of rheumatoid arthritis 1990-2017: a systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease study 2017. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019;78(11):1463-1471. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-215920 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Chatzidionysiou K, Sfikakis PP. Low rates of remission with methotrexate monotherapy in rheumatoid arthritis: review of randomised controlled trials could point towards a paradigm shift. RMD Open. 2019;5(2):e000993. doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2019-000993 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ho CTK, Mok CC, Cheung TT, Kwok KY, Yip RML; Hong Kong Society of Rheumatology . Management of rheumatoid arthritis: 2019 updated consensus recommendations from the Hong Kong Society of Rheumatology. Clin Rheumatol. 2019;38(12):3331-3350. doi: 10.1007/s10067-019-04761-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Smolen JS, Landewé RBM, Bergstra SA, et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2022 update. Ann Rheum Dis. 2023;82(1):3-18. doi: 10.1136/ard-2022-223356 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.van Vollenhoven RF, Geborek P, Forslind K, et al. ; Swefot study group . Conventional combination treatment versus biological treatment in methotrexate-refractory early rheumatoid arthritis: 2 year follow-up of the randomised, non-blinded, parallel-group Swefot trial. Lancet. 2012;379(9827):1712-1720. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60027-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Huang Y, Agarwal SK, Chen H, Chatterjee S, Johnson ML, Aparasu RR. Real-world comparative effectiveness of methotrexate-based combinations for rheumatoid arthritis: a retrospective cohort study. Clin Ther. 2023;45(9):e177-e186. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2023.06.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Fleischmann R, Koenig AS, Szumski A, Nab HW, Marshall L, Bananis E. Short-term efficacy of etanercept plus methotrexate vs combinations of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs with methotrexate in established rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2014;53(11):1984-1993. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keu235 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Geborek P, Crnkic M, Petersson IF, Saxne T; South Swedish Arthritis Treatment Group . Etanercept, infliximab, and leflunomide in established rheumatoid arthritis: clinical experience using a structured follow up programme in southern Sweden. Ann Rheum Dis. 2002;61(9):793-798. doi: 10.1136/ard.61.9.793 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Li Y, Lau LKW, Peng K, et al. Factors influencing choice of b/ts DMARDs in managing inflammatory arthritis from a patient perspective: a systematic review of global evidence and a patient-based survey from Hong Kong. BMJ Open. 2023;13(10):e069681. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069681 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Patel D, Shelbaya A, Cheung R, Aggarwal J, Park SH, Coindreau J. Cost-effectiveness of early treatment with originator biologics or their biosimilars after methotrexate failure in patients with established rheumatoid arthritis. Adv Ther. 2019;36(8):2086-2095. doi: 10.1007/s12325-019-00986-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Finckh A, Bansback N, Marra CA, et al. Treatment of very early rheumatoid arthritis with symptomatic therapy, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, or biologic agents: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(9):612-621. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-9-200911030-00006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Cohen HP, Blauvelt A, Rifkin RM, Danese S, Gokhale SB, Woollett G. Switching reference medicines to biosimilars: a systematic literature review of clinical outcomes. Drugs. 2018;78(4):463-478. doi: 10.1007/s40265-018-0881-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Komaki Y, Yamada A, Komaki F, et al. Efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of biosimilars of anti-tumor necrosis factor-α agents in rheumatic diseases; a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Autoimmun. 2017;79:4-16. doi: 10.1016/j.jaut.2017.02.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Brill A, Robinson C. Lessons for the United States from Europe’s biosimilar experience. Matrix Global Advisors. Accessed May 17, 2024. https://biosimilarscouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/EuropeBiosimilars_June_2020.pdf
  • 15.Kawalec P, Stawowczyk E, Tesar T, et al. Pricing and reimbursement of biosimilars in central and eastern European countries. Front Pharmacol. 2017;8:288. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2017.00288 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Authority H. HA drug formulary management. 2023. Accessed June 28, 2023. https://www.ha.org.hk/hadf/en-us/Updated-HA-Drug-Formulary/Drug-Formulary.html
  • 17.Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 Explanation and Elaboration: A Report of the ISPOR CHEERS II Good Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2022;25(1):10-31. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.10.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Park SK, Park SH, Lee MY, Park JH, Jeong JH, Lee EK. Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment sequence initiating with etanercept compared with leflunomide in rheumatoid arthritis: impact of reduced etanercept cost with patent expiration in South Korea. Clin Ther. 2016;38(11):2430-2446.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2016.09.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Yoo DH, Hrycaj P, Miranda P, et al. A randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study to demonstrate equivalence in efficacy and safety of CT-P13 compared with innovator infliximab when coadministered with methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: the PLANETRA study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2013;72(10):1613-1620. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-203090 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Cohen S, Genovese MC, Choy E, et al. Efficacy and safety of the biosimilar ABP 501 compared with adalimumab in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised, double-blind, phase III equivalence study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76(10):1679-1687. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-210459 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Lee MY, Park SK, Park SY, et al. Cost-effectiveness of tofacitinib in the treatment of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis in South Korea. Clin Ther. 2015;37(8):1662-76.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2015.07.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Filipović-Pierucci A ZK, Durand-Zaleski I. Markov models for health economic evaluation: the R package heemod. arXiv. Preprint posted online April 25, 2017. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1702.03252 [DOI]
  • 23.Hong Kong Hospital Authority . Introduction. Caring for our community’s health. Accessed Dec 5, 2023. https://www.ha.org.hk/visitor/ha_visitor_index.asp?Parent_ID=10004&Content_ID=10008&Ver=HTML
  • 24.Census and Statistics Department . Hong Kong Life Tables 2014–2069. 2019. Accessed May 22, 2024. https://www.censtatd.gov.hk/en/EIndexbySubject.html?pcode=B1120016&scode=160
  • 25.Wolfe F, Mitchell DM, Sibley JT, et al. The mortality of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1994;37(4):481-494. doi: 10.1002/art.1780370408 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Barton P, Jobanputra P, Wilson J, Bryan S, Burls A. The use of modelling to evaluate new drugs for patients with a chronic condition: the case of antibodies against tumour necrosis factor in rheumatoid arthritis. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(11):e2418800. doi: 10.3310/hta8110 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Bruce B, Fries JF. The Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire: dimensions and practical applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:20. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-1-20 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Tanno M, Nakamura I, Ito K, et al. Modeling and cost-effectiveness analysis of etanercept in adults with rheumatoid arthritis in Japan: a preliminary analysis. Mod Rheumatol. 2006;16(2):77-84. doi: 10.3109/s10165-006-0461-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Keystone EC, Kavanaugh AF, Sharp JT, et al. Radiographic, clinical, and functional outcomes of treatment with adalimumab (a human anti-tumor necrosis factor monoclonal antibody) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis receiving concomitant methotrexate therapy: a randomized, placebo-controlled, 52-week trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2004;50(5):1400-1411. doi: 10.1002/art.20217 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Keystone EC, Genovese MC, Klareskog L, et al. ; GO-FORWARD Study . Golimumab, a human antibody to tumour necrosis factor alpha given by monthly subcutaneous injections, in active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy: the GO-FORWARD Study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68(6):789-796. doi: 10.1136/ard.2008.099010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Weinblatt ME, Kremer JM, Bankhurst AD, et al. A trial of etanercept, a recombinant tumor necrosis factor receptor:Fc fusion protein, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving methotrexate. N Engl J Med. 1999;340(4):253-259. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199901283400401 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Keystone E, Heijde Dv, Mason D Jr, et al. Certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate is significantly more effective than placebo plus methotrexate in active rheumatoid arthritis: findings of a fifty-two-week, phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;58(11):3319-3329. doi: 10.1002/art.23964 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Bombardieri S, Ruiz AA, Fardellone P, et al. ; Research in Active Rheumatoid Arthritis (ReAct) Study Group . Effectiveness of adalimumab for rheumatoid arthritis in patients with a history of TNF-antagonist therapy in clinical practice. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2007;46(7):1191-1199. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kem091 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Smolen JS, Kay J, Doyle MK, et al. ; GO-AFTER study investigators . Golimumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis after treatment with tumour necrosis factor α inhibitors (GO-AFTER study): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial. Lancet. 2009;374(9685):210-221. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60506-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Bessette L, Khraishi M, Kivitz AJ, et al. Single-arm study of etanercept in adult patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis who failed adalimumab treatment. Rheumatol Ther. 2017;4(2):391-404. doi: 10.1007/s40744-017-0079-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Bessette L, Haraoui B, Chow A, et al. Effectiveness and safety of certolizumab pegol in rheumatoid arthritis patients in Canadian practice: 2-year results from the observational FαsT-CAN study. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis. Published online March 5, 2019. doi: 10.1177/1759720X19831151 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Fleischmann R, Goldman JA, Leirisalo-Repo M, et al. Infliximab efficacy in rheumatoid arthritis after an inadequate response to etanercept or adalimumab: results of a target-driven active switch study. Curr Med Res Opin. 2014;30(11):2139-2149. doi: 10.1185/03007995.2014.942416 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Genovese MC, Schiff M, Luggen M, et al. Longterm safety and efficacy of abatacept through 5 years of treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy. J Rheumatol. 2012;39(8):1546-1554. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.111531 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Cohen SB, Emery P, Greenwald MW, et al. ; REFLEX Trial Group . Rituximab for rheumatoid arthritis refractory to anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy: Results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial evaluating primary efficacy and safety at twenty-four weeks. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54(9):2793-2806. doi: 10.1002/art.22025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Fleischmann R, van Adelsberg J, Lin Y, et al. Sarilumab and nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response or intolerance to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2017;69(2):277-290. doi: 10.1002/art.39944 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Strand V, Burmester GR, Ogale S, Devenport J, John A, Emery P. Improvements in health-related quality of life after treatment with tocilizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis refractory to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors: results from the 24-week randomized controlled RADIATE study. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2012;51(10):1860-1869. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kes131 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Burmester GR, Blanco R, Charles-Schoeman C, et al. ; ORAL Step investigators . Tofacitinib (CP-690,550) in combination with methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis with an inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors: a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2013;381(9865):451-460. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61424-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Genovese MC, Kremer J, Zamani O, et al. Baricitinib in patients with refractory rheumatoid arthritis. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(13):1243-1252. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1507247 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Chen YF, Jobanputra P, Barton P, et al. A systematic review of the effectiveness of adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in adults and an economic evaluation of their cost-effectiveness. Health Technol Assess. 2006;10(42):iii-229. doi: 10.3310/hta10420 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Scott DL, Ibrahim F, Hill H, et al. Programme Grants for Applied Research. In: Intensive therapy for moderate established rheumatoid arthritis: the TITRATE research programme. Southampton (UK); 2021 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Hong Kong Inland Revenue Department . Average exchange rates of major foreign currencies for profits tax purposes - 2021/22. 2022. Accessed February 8, 2023. https://www.ird.gov.hk/eng/tax/bus_aer22.htm
  • 47.Census and Statistics Department . Table 31: Gross domestic product (GDP), implicit price deflator of GDP and per capita GDP. 2022. Accessed February 8, 2023. https://www.censtatd.gov.hk/en/web_table.html?id=31
  • 48.Tan-Torres Edejer T, Baltussen R, Adam T, et al. WHO Making choices in health: WHO guide to cost-effectiveness analysis. 2003.
  • 49.Pennington B, Davis S. Mapping from the Health Assessment Questionnaire to the EQ-5D: the impact of different algorithms on cost-effectiveness results. Value Health. 2014;17(8):762-771. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.11.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Sculpher MJ, Pang FS, Manca A, et al. Generalisability in economic evaluation studies in healthcare: a review and case studies. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(49):iii-iv, 1-192. doi: 10.3310/hta8490 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Peng K, Blais JE, Pratt NL, et al. Impact of introducing infliximab biosimilars on total infliximab consumption and originator infliximab prices in eight regions: an interrupted time-series analysis. BioDrugs. 2023;37(3):409-420. doi: 10.1007/s40259-023-00589-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Brauer R, Alfageh B, Blais JE, et al. Psychotropic medicine consumption in 65 countries and regions, 2008-19: a longitudinal study. Lancet Psychiatry. 2021;8(12):1071-1082. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(21)00292-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Amgen. Biosimilar trends report. 2022. Accessed February 15, 2023. https://www.amgenoncology.com/assets/USA-CBU-80962.pdf
  • 54.The World Bank. World Bank country and lending groups. Accessed January 4, 2024. https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups
  • 55.Kaló Z, Vokó Z, Östör A, et al. Patient access to reimbursed biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in the European region. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2017;5(1):1345580. doi: 10.1080/20016689.2017.1345580 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Putrik P, Ramiro S, Kvien TK, Sokka T, Uhlig T, Boonen A; Equity in Clinical Eligibility Criteria for RA treatment Working Group . Variations in criteria regulating treatment with reimbursed biologic DMARDs across European countries. are differences related to country’s wealth? Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73(11):2010-2021. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-203819 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.International Monetary Fund . GDP per capita, current prices. 2023. Accessed June 29, 2023. https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPDPC@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD
  • 58.Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency . New drugs. Accessed June 29, 2023. https://www.pmda.go.jp/english/review-services/reviews/approved-information/drugs/0002.html
  • 59.National Health Insurance Administration . Accessed June 29, 2023. https://www.nhi.gov.tw/Content_List.aspx?n=238507DCFE832EAE&topn=5FE8C9FEAE863B46
  • 60.Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service . Accessed June 29, 2023. https://www.hira.or.kr/bbsDummy.do?pgmid=HIRAA030014050000
  • 61.Kim HS, Lee S, Kim JH. Real-world evidence versus randomized controlled trial: clinical research based on electronic medical records. J Korean Med Sci. 2018;33(34):e213. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2018.33.e213 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Novella-Navarro M, Plasencia C, Tornero C, et al. Clinical predictors of multiple failure to biological therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Res Ther. 2020;22(1):284. doi: 10.1186/s13075-020-02354-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Zhu TY, Tam LS, Li EK. Societal costs of rheumatoid arthritis in Hong Kong: a prevalence-based cost-of-illness study. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2011;50(7):1293-1301. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/ker014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Batko B, Rolska-Wójcik P, Władysiuk M. Indirect costs of rheumatoid arthritis depending on type of treatment-a systematic literature review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(16):2966. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16162966 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Whittington MD, McQueen RB, Ollendorf DA, et al. Assessing the value of sarilumab monotherapy for adults with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2019;25(1):80-87. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2019.25.1.080 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Kvamme MK, Lie E, Uhlig T, Moger TA, Kvien TK, Kristiansen IS. Cost-effectiveness of TNF inhibitors vs synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a Markov model study based on two longitudinal observational studies. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2015;54(7):1226-1235. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keu460 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplement 1.

eTable 1. Patients’ Demographics and Disease Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs Market Share in Hong Kong

eTable 2. Number of Patients Discontinue Treatment or Experience Adverse Events During Two Years Follow-Up

eTable 3. Model Input Parameters of Subsequent Treatments

eTable 4. Cost of Adverse Events per Episode

eTable 5. Numerical Results of Scenario Analysis

eTable 6. Price of Biosimilar Infliximab in July 2022

eFigure 1. Treatment Transition Pathway in the Markov Simulation Model

eFigure 2. Deterministic Sensitivity Analysis Comparing CT-P13 Against LEF

eFigure 3. Deterministic Sensitivity Analysis Comparing ABP-501 Against LEF

eFigure 4. Deterministic Sensitivity Analysis Comparing ABP-501 Against CT-P13

jamanetwopen-e2418800-s001.pdf (905.8KB, pdf)
Supplement 2.

Data Sharing Statement

jamanetwopen-e2418800-s002.pdf (13.2KB, pdf)

Articles from JAMA Network Open are provided here courtesy of American Medical Association

RESOURCES