Cost per responder for upadacitinib vs abatacept in patients with moderate-to-severe Rheumatoid Arthritis in Italy

Abstract

Purpose: The objective of this economic evaluation was to compare the cost per responder between upadacitinib and abatacept (intravenous [iv] or subcutaneous [sc]) in patients with moderate-to-severe Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) in Italy.
 Methods: The clinical efficacy was assessed based on SELECT-CHOICE study results. The clinical efficacy of upadacitinib and abatacept (iv or sc) was measured by Clinical Remission (CR), Low Disease Activity (LDA) and American College of Rheumatology response (ACR20, 50 and 70). The treatment cost was based on the number of administrations dispensed at 12 or 24 weeks. The cost per responder was adopted as a cost-effectiveness indicator.
 Results: Independent of the clinical efficacy measure used and the duration of treatment considered, the cost per responder was consistently lower for upadacitinib compared to abatacept (iv or sc) across all clinical measures. For example, considering the CR at 24 weeks, the cost per responder for upadacitinib was € 9,417 compared to € 17,817 for abatacept sc or to € 23,110 for abatacept iv. The differences in the cost per responder between upadacitinib and abatacept (iv or sc) increased when higher ACR response levels were considered.
 Conclusions: These results suggested that upadacitinib is a cost-effectiveness option compared to abatacept (iv or sc) from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service in patients with moderate-to-severe Rheumatoid Arthritis in Italy.

Erratum in: Cost per responder for upadacitinib vs abatacept in patients with moderate-to-severe Rheumatoid Arthritis in Italy

“…In the article “Cost per responder for upadacitinib vs abatacept in patients with moderate-to-severe Rheumatoid Arthritis in Italy”, ( 1 ) which appeared in Volume 8, Issue 1 of Global & Regional Health Technology Assessment, the values appearing in Fig. 5 C and D, inadvertently repeated the values reported in Fig.…”