Indirect and total costs of early rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized comparison of combined step-down prednisolone, methotrexate, and sulfasalazine with sulfasalazine alone.

OBJECTIVE To describe the effect of indirect costs for patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) within the COBRA trial (Combinatietherapie Bij Reumatoide Artritis) on the cost-effectiveness of both therapies. Analyses of the efficacy and direct costs of the treatments have already been reported. METHODS Patients with early RA selected for the 56-week trial were randomly assigned to prednisolone, methotrexate, and sulfasalazine (the COBRA combination) (n = 76, tapered after 28 weeks) or to sulfasalazine (SSZ; n = 79, of which 78 patients were evaluable) alone. The main efficacy outcomes were a pooled index and radiographic damage score in hands and feet, and utilities. Direct and indirect costs were measured (from a societal perspective) by means of cost diaries and interviews completed by patients during the intervention phase and the followup phase, each lasting 28 weeks. Differences in mean costs between groups and cost-utility ratios were evaluated by applying nonparametric bootstrapping techniques. RESULTS In the first 28 weeks, indirect costs per patient totaled US $2,578 and US $3,638 for COBRA and SSZ therapy, respectively (p = 0.09). The total costs were $5,931 and $7,853, respectively (p < 0.05). These differences were lost in the second 28 weeks. For the total period the mean total costs per patient were $10,262 and $12,788, respectively (p = 0.11). Sensitivity analyses showed robustness of the data. The point estimate of the cost per quality-adjusted life-year based on the rating scale was negative at $-385, suggesting dominance of COBRA (more effect at lower cost). CONCLUSION COBRA therapy adds additional disease control (improvements in disease activity, physical function, and rate of damage progression) at lower or equal cost compared to SSZ in early RA.

[1]  Rene Westhovens,et al.  COBRA combination therapy in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: long-term structural benefits of a brief intervention. , 2002, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[2]  S Merkesdal,et al.  Indirect medical costs in early rheumatoid arthritis: composition of and changes in indirect costs within the first three years of disease. , 2001, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[3]  S. Thompson,et al.  How should cost data in pragmatic randomised trials be analysed? , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[4]  A Briggs,et al.  Confidence intervals or surfaces? Uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness plane. , 1998, Health economics.

[5]  M. Mcgrath Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. , 1998 .

[6]  J. Jacobs,et al.  Direct cost of rheumatoid arthritis during the first six years: a cost-of-illness study. , 1998, British journal of rheumatology.

[7]  G. Nuki,et al.  Is day care equivalent to inpatient care for active rheumatoid arthritis? Randomised controlled clinical and economic evaluation , 1998, BMJ.

[8]  J. Vlaeyen,et al.  Health economic assessment of behavioural rehabilitation in chronic low back pain: a randomised clinical trial. , 1998, Health economics.

[9]  C. Bombardier,et al.  A summary of economic evaluations published in the field of rheumatology and related disciplines. , 1997, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[10]  S. van der Linden,et al.  Randomised comparison of combined step-down prednisolone, methotrexate and sulphasalazine with sulphasalazine alone in early rheumatoid arthritis , 1997, The Lancet.

[11]  D. Lubeck,et al.  Direct and indirect medical costs incurred by Canadian patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a 12 year study. , 1997, The Journal of rheumatology.

[12]  S. Magnusson Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis--does it affect society's cost for the disease? , 1996, British journal of rheumatology.

[13]  E. McIntosh,et al.  The cost of rheumatoid arthritis. , 1996, British journal of rheumatology.

[14]  S. Stearns,et al.  Estimating confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios: an example from a randomized trial. , 1996, Statistics in medicine.

[15]  J. Huisman The Netherlands , 1996, The Lancet.

[16]  E. Yelin The costs of rheumatoid arthritis: absolute, incremental, and marginal estimates. , 1996, The Journal of rheumatology. Supplement.

[17]  L. Bouter,et al.  A cost-of-illness study of back pain in The Netherlands , 1995, Pain.

[18]  M. Koopmanschap,et al.  Indirect costs of disease; an international comparison. , 1995, Health policy.

[19]  M. Johannesson On the estimation of cost-effectiveness ratios. , 1995, Health policy.

[20]  M A Koopmanschap,et al.  The impact of indirect costs on outcomes of health care programs. , 1994, Health economics.

[21]  George W. Torrance,et al.  Methodologic challenges in the development of utility measures of health-related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis. , 1991, Controlled clinical trials.

[22]  M. Liang,et al.  The American Rheumatism Association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis. , 1988, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[23]  S. Wilson Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes , 1987 .

[24]  M A Koopmanschap,et al.  INDIRECT COSTS : THE CONSEQUENCE OF PRODUCTION LOSS OR INCREASED COSTS OF PRODUCTION , 2016 .

[25]  N. Cooper Economic burden of rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review. , 2000, Rheumatology.

[26]  M. Boers,et al.  COST-EFFECTIVENESS AND COST-UTILITY OF COMBINATION THERAPY IN EARLY RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS : RANDOMIZED COMPARISON OF COMBINED STEP-DOWN PREDNISOLONE , METHOTREXATE AND SULPHASALAZINE WITH SULPHASALAZINE ALONE , 1998 .

[27]  J. Posnett,et al.  Indirect cost in economic evaluation: the opportunity cost of unpaid inputs. , 1996, Health economics.