Pharmacoeconomic properties of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs

  • Andreas Maetzel
  • Daniel H. Solomon
Part of the Progress in Inflammation Research book series (PIR)


The discipline of pharmacoeconomics has gained in importance in recent decades as countries and healthcare payers face pressures to justify investments in healthcare innovations. This situation has largely resulted from a coincidence of a demographic shift towards an increasingly elderly population and the development of effective and much more expensive therapies based in biotechnological advances. Many of these therapies improve health and may increase productivity and possibly prevent costly complications. Consequently health expenditures, previously considered “expenses”, are now more frequently referred to as “investments” to maintain a healthy and productive workforce [1]. Demonstration of “value for money” has become an important milestone for therapies on their way to rapid, and reimbursed, adoption.


Rheumatoid Arthritis Health Assessment Questionnaire Health Assessment Questionnaire Score Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation Rheumatoid Arthri 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bloom DE, Canning D (2000) PUBLIC HEALTH: The Health and Wealth of Nations. Science 287 (5456): 1207–1209CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Detsky AS, Naglie G, Krahn MD, Redelmeier DA, Naimark D (1997) Primer on medical decision analysis: Part 2 — Building a tree. Med Decis Making 17 (2): 126–135CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Detsky AS, Naglie G, Krahn MD, Naimark D, Redelmeier DA (1997) Primer on medical decision analysis: Part 1 — Getting started. Med Decis Making 17 (2): 123–125CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Krahn MD, Naglie G, Naimark D, Redelmeier DA, Detsky AS (1997) Primer on medical decision analysis: Part 4 — Analyzing the model and interpreting the results. Med Decis Making 17 (2): 142–151CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Naglie G, Krahn MD, Naimark D, Redelmeier DA, Detsky AS (1997) Primer on medical decision analysis: Part 3 — Estimating probabilities and utilities. Med Decis Making 17 (2): 136–141CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Naimark D, Krahn MD, Naglie G, Redelmeier DA, Detsky AS (1997) Primer on medical decision analysis: Part 5 — Working with Markov processes. Med Decis Making 17 (2): 152–159CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maetzel A, Strand V, Tugwell P, Wells G, Bombardier C (2002) Cost effectiveness of adding leflunomide to a 5-year strategy of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 47 (6): 655–661CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, Tugwell PX (1992) How attractive does a new tech-nology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. Can Med Assoc J 146: 473–481Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Übel PA, Hirth RA, Chernew ME, Fendrick AM (2003) What is the price of life and why doesn’t it increase at the rate of inflation? Arch Intern Med 163 (14): 1637–1641CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hill SR, Mitchell AS, Henry DA (2000) Problems with the interpretation of pharmacoeconomic analyses: a review of submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, [see comments]. JAMA 283 (16): 2116–2121CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pausjenssen AM, Detsky AS (1998) Guidelines for measuring the costs and consequences of adopting new pharmaceutical products: are they on track? Med Decis Making 18 (2 Suppl): S19–S22CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC (1996) Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford University Press, New York, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gabriel S, Drummond M, Maetzel A, Boers M, Coyle D, Welch V, Tugwell P (2003) OMERACT 6 Economics Working Group report: a proposal for a reference case for economic evaluation in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 30 (4): 886–890PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maetzel A, Tugwell P, Boers M, Guillemin F, Coyle D, Drummond M, Wong JB, Gabriel SE (2003) Economic evaluation of programs or interventions in the management of rheumatoid arthritis: defining a consensus-based reference case. J Rheumatol 30: 891–896PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    O’Brien BJ, Heyland D, Richardson WS, Levine M, Drummond MF (1997) Users’ guides to the medical literature. XIII. How to use an article on economic analysis of clin-ical practice. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group, [erratum appears in JAMA (1997) Oct 1; 278 (13): 1064]. JAMA 277 (22): 1802-1806Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Drummond MF, Richardson WS, O’Brien BJ, Levine M, Heyland D (1997) Users’ guides to the medical literature. XIII. How to use an article on economic analysis of clinical practice. A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 277 (19): 1552–1557CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wong JB, Singh G, Kavanaugh A (2002) Estimating the cost-effectiveness of 54 weeks of infliximab for rheumatoid arthritis. Am J Med 113 (5): 400–408CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kobelt G, Jonsson L, Young A, Eberhardt K (2003) The cost-effectiveness of infliximab (Remicade) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in Sweden and the United Kingdom based on the ATTRACT study. Rheumatology 42 (2): 326–335CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brennan A, Bansback N, Reynolds A, Conway P (2004) MO’Delling the cost-effectiveness of etanercept in adults with rheumatoid arthritis in the UK. [see comment]. Rheumatology 43 (1): 62–72CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fries JF, Spitz P, Kraines RG, Holman HR (1980) Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 23 (2): 137–145CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    van der Heijde DM, van’t Hof M, van Riel PL, van de Putte LB (1993) Development of a disease activity score based on judgment in clinical practice by rheumatologists. J Rheumatol 20 (3): 579–581PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wolfe F, Michaud K, Pincus T (2004) Do rheumatology cost-effectiveness analyses make sense? Rheumatology 43 (1): 4–6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sokka T, Pincus T (2003) Most patients receiving routine care for rheumatoid arthritis in 2001 did not meet inclusion criteria for most recent clinical trials or American Col-lege of Rheumatology criteria for remission. J Rheumatol 30 (6): 1138–1146PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cooper NJ (2000) Economic burden of rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review. Rheumatology 39: 28–33CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yelin E, Wanke LA (1999) An assessment of the annual and long-term direct costs of rheumatoid arthritis: the impact of poor function and functional decline. Arthritis Rheum 42 (6): 1209–1218CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Newhall-Perry K, Law NJ, Ramos B, Sterz M, Wong WK, Bulpitt KJ, Park G, Lee M, Clements P, Paulus HE (2000) Direct and indirect costs associated with the onset of seropositive rheumatoid arthritis. Western Consortium of Practicing Rheumatologists. J Rheumatol 27 (5): 1156–1163PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Maetzel A, Li LC, Pencharz J, Tomlinson G, Bombardier C (2004) The economic burden associated with osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and hypertension: a comparative study. Ann Rheum Dis 63 (4): 395–401CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Clarke AE, Penrod J, St Pierre Y, Petri MA, Manzi S, Isenberg DA, Gordon C, Senecal JL, Fortin PR, Sutcliffe N et al (2000) Underestimating the value of women: assessing the indirect costs of women with systemic lupus erythematosus. Tri-Nation Study Group. J Rheumatol 27 (11): 2597–2604PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Koopmanschap MA, van Ineveld BM (1992) Towards a new approach for estimating indirect costs of disease. Soc Sei Med 34: 1005–1010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Choi HK, Seeger JD, Kuntz KM (2002) A cost effectiveness analysis of treatment options for methotrexate-naive rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 29 (6): 1156–1165PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Boers M (2003) Add-on or step-up trials for new drug development in rheumatoid arthritis: a new standard? Arthritis Rheum 48 (6): 1481–1483CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Choi HK, Seeger JD, Kuntz KM (2000) A cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment options for patients with methotrexate-resistant rheumatoid arthritis [In Process Citation]. Arthritis Rheum 43 (10): 2316–2327CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser Verlag Basel/Switzerland 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Maetzel
    • 1
  • Daniel H. Solomon
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of Clinical Decision Making, Dept. of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (AM), University Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics (DHS), Division of Rheumatology, Immunology, and AllergyBrigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations