Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Modelling cost effectiveness and cost utility of sequential DMARD therapy including leflunomide in rheumatoid arthritis in Germany

I. Selected DMARDs and patient-related costs

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective: To quantify direct costs of medication and cost of illness (according to functional capacity) for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Germany, allowing further use in a health economic evaluation of sequential therapy with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in specialised, i.e. rheumatological, care in Germany.

Design and setting: The analysis was conducted from the societal perspective in Germany using a modelling approach, which was based on secondary analysis of existing data and on data from a sample of 583 patients from the German rheumatological database of 1998. Functional capacity was defined by the Hannover Functional Ability Questionnaire (HFAQ) scores. Costs were calculated from resources utilised and patients of work capacity. Direct costs consisted of outpatient medical services, inpatient treatment, long-term care and rehabilitation treatment. Indirect costs incurred by sick leave and premature retirement were quantified according to the human-capital approach.

Main outcome measures and results: Average total direct costs (year 1998–2001 values) per patient per year for continuous treatment with the selected DMARDs comprising costs for drugs, monitoring and treatment of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were highest for intramuscular gold (sodium aurothiomalate) [€2106 (€1 ≈ $US0.91; average of the period from 2000 through 2001)] followed by leflunomide (€2010), azathioprine (€1878), sulfasalazine (€1190), oral methotrexate (€708), and lowest for the antimalarials chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine (€684). There were additional yearly costs for RA-related non-DMARD medication of €554 per patient, including management of ADRs.

Mean cost of illness (year 1998 values) excluding medication cost amounted to €17 868 per RA patient per year. Annual costs increased with increasing disability, i.e. decreasing functional capacity, of RA patients from €6029 per patient with more than 94% of functional capacity to €28 509 per patient with <20% of functional capacity. In general, there was a predominance of indirect costs in each of the categories of functional capacity, ranging between 74% and 87% of total (direct and indirect) annual costs per RA patient. Annual direct costs increased from €811 to €7438 per patient with increasing disability. Inpatient treatment was the predominant component of direct costs. Patients in the worst category (<20%) of function experienced hospital costs that were 6.5 times higher than those of patients in the best category (>94%).

Conclusions: On the basis of the data presented it can be concluded that the results of this investigation are typical for patients in rheumatological care in Germany and can therefore be used in a health economic analysis of different DMARD sequences aimed at changing disease progression over time.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II
Table III
Table IV
Table V
Fig. 1
Table VI

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Smythe CJ. Therapy of rheumatoid arthritis: a pyramidal plan. Postgrad Med 1972; 51: 31–9

    Google Scholar 

  2. Wilske KR, Healey LA. Remodeling the pyramid: a concept whose time has come. J Rheumatol 1989; 16: 565–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Fries IF. Re-evaluating the therapeutic approach to rheumatoid arthritis: the “sawtooth” strategy. J Rheumatol Suppl 1990; 22: 12–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Felson DT, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Use of short-term efficacy/toxicity tradeoffs to select second-line drugs in rheumatoid arthritis: a metaanalysis of published clinical trials. Arthritis Rheum 1992; 35: 1117–25

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Collins D, Bellamy N, Campbell J. A Canadian survey of current methotrexate prescribing practices in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 1994; 21: 1220–3

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Zink A, Listing M, Niewerth H, et al. The national database of the German Collaborative Arthritis Centres: I Structure, aims, and patients. Ann Rheum Dis 2001; 60: 199–206

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Zink A, Listing M, Niewerth H, et al. The national database of the German Collaborative Arthritis Centres: II. Treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2001; 60: 207–13

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. EMEA - The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products. European public assessment report Arava, International Nonproprietary (INN) leflunomide. London: EMEA, 2000

  9. Prakash A, Jarvis B. Leflunomide: a review of its use in active rheumatoid arthritis. Drugs 1999; 58: 1137–64

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Smolen IS, Kalden JR, Scott DL et al., and the European Leflunomide Study Group. Efficacy and safety of leflunomide compared with placebo and sulfasalazine in active rheumatoid arthritis: a double-blind, randomised, multicentre trial. Lancet 1999; 353: 259–66

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Strand V, Cohen S, Schiff M, et al. Treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis with leflunomide compared with placebo and methotrexate. Arch Intern Med 1999; 159: 2542–50

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Emery P, Breedveld FC, Lemmel EM, et al. A comparison of the efficacy and safety of leflunomide and methotrexate for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology 2000; 39: 655–65

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Sharp IT, Strand V, Leung H, et al. Treatment with leflunomide slows radiographic progression of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2000; 43: 495–505

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Strand V, Tugwell P, Bombardier C, et al. Function and healthrelated quality of life: results from a randomized controlled trial of leflunomide versus methotrexate or placebo in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1999; 42: 1870–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Möttönen T, Paimela L, Ahonen J, et al. Outcome in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis treated according to the “sawtooth” strategy. Arthritis Rheum 1996; 39: 996–1005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sokka T, Möttönen T, Hannonen P. Disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use according to the `sawtooth’ treatment strategy improves the functional outcome in rheumatoid arthri tis: results of a long-term follow-up study with review of the literature. Rheumatology 2000; 39: 34–42

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Keysser M, Keyper G, Keysser C. Long-term application of disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD): a singlecenter, observational study of 1681 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Z Rheumatol 1999; 58: 267–76

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Maetzel A, Wong A, Strand V, et al. Mete-analysis of treatment termination rates among rheumatoid arthritis patients receiving disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. Rheumatology 2000; 39: 975–81

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Schadlich PK, Zeidler H, Zink A, et al. Modelling cost effectiveness and cost utility of sequential DMARD therapy including leflunomide in rheumatoid arthritis in Germany: II. The contribution of leflunomide to efficiency. Pharmacoeconomics 2005; 23 (4); 395–420

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cambridge Pharma Consultancy. The Arava® interactive models. Cambridge: Cambridge Pharma Consultancy, 1999. (Data on file)

  21. Brecht JG, Jenke A, Köhler ME, et al. Empfehlungen der Demschen Gesellschaft far Klinische Pharmakologie and Therapie zur Durchfdhrung and Bewertung pharmakoökonomischer Studien. Med Klin 1995; 90: 541–6

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Sozialgesetzbuch - Fdnftes Buch (V) - Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung vom 20. December 1988

  23. Sozialgesetzbuch - Elftes Buch (XI) - Soziale Pflegeversicherung vom 26. May 1994

  24. Sozialgesetzbuch - Sechstes Buch (VI) - Gesetzliche Rentenversicherung vom 18. December 1989

  25. Gesetz zur Starkung der Solidaritat in der Gesetzlichen Krankenversicherung vom 19. December 1998

  26. Kassenerztliche Bundesvereinigung, editor. Einheitlicher Bewertungsmapstab - EBM. Köln: Deutscher Arzte-Verlag, Stand 1. July 2000

  27. Arzneimittelpreisverordnung vom 20. July 2000

  28. Bundesministerium fur Arbeit and Sozialordnung, editor. Statistisches Taschenbuch 2000: Arbeits- and Sozialstatistik Bonn: Bundesministerium fur Arbeit and Sozialordnung, 2000

  29. Bundesministerium fur Gesundheit, editor. Statistisches Taschenbuch Gesundheit 2000. Bonn: Bundesministerium fur Gesundheit, 2000

  30. Statistisches Bundesamt, editor. Kostennachweis der Krankenhauser 1998. Stuttgart: Metzler-Poeschel, 2000

  31. Verband Demscher Rentenversicherungstrager - VDR, editor. VDR Statistik Band 130 - Rehabilitation 1998. Frankfurt: VDR, 1999

  32. Kassenerztliche Vereinigung Schleswig-Holstein, editor. Rechnerischer Quartalspunktwert im 3. Quartal 2000. Bad Segeberg: Kassenerztliche Vereinigung Schleswig-Holstein, 2001

  33. LAUER-FISCHER GmbH, editor. Große Deutsche Spezialitaten-Taxe, Lauer®-Taxe mit Apotheken-Ein- and Verkaufspreisen. Fürth: LAUER-FISCHER GmbH, 1. July 2001

  34. Schmidt G. Antirheumatika and Antiphlogistika. In: Schwabe U, Paffrath D, editors. Arzneiverordnungs-Report 2000. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2000: 210–233

    Google Scholar 

  35. Schwabe U. Corticosteroide. In: Schwabe U, Paffrath D, editors. Arzneiverordnungs-report 2000. Berlin, Heidelberg: SpringerVerlag, 2000: 294–302

    Google Scholar 

  36. Schwabe U, Ziegler R. Mineralstoffpraparate and Osteoporosemittel. In: Schwabe U, Paffrath D, editors. Arzneiverordnungs-report 2000. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2000: 491–506

    Google Scholar 

  37. Projektgruppe “Diagnose- and Therapierichtlinien” der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Kooperativer Regionaler Rheumazentren in der DGRh. Therapiedberwachungsempfehlungen fur Arzte (Rec ommendations for physicians to monitor antirheumatic therapy) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.rheumanet.org/ID/arzt-boegen.htm [Accessed 2000 Dee 4]

  38. Prashker MJ, Meenan RF. The total costs of drug therapy for rheumatoid arthritis: a model based on costs of drug, monitoring, and toxicity. Arthritis Rheum 1995; 38: 318–25

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. OECD - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. National accounts of OECD countries. Main aggregates. Vol. 1: 1988-1999. Paris: OECD, 2001

  40. Schadlich PK. Modelle der Kosten-Nutzen-Bewertung in Deutschland. Beispiel: Prevention in der Rheumatology. In: Kori-Lindner C, editor. Pharmakoökonomie in Deutschland. Aulendorf: Editio Cantor Verlag, 1995: 157–167

    Google Scholar 

  41. Raspe HH, Hagedorn U, Kohlmann T, et al. Der Funktionsfragebogen Hannover (FFbH): Fin Instrument zur Fruhdiagnostik bei polyartikularen Gelenkerkrankungen. In: Siegrist J, editor. Wohnortnahe Betreuung Rheumakranker. Stuttgart: Schattauer, 1990: 164–182

    Google Scholar 

  42. Ramey DR, Raynauld JP, Fries JF. The health assessment questionnaire 1992: status and review. Arthritis Care Res 1992; 5: 119–29

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Lautenschleger J, Mau W, Kohlmann T, et al. Vergleichende Evaluation einer deutschen Version des Health Assessment Questionnaires (HAQ) and des Funktionsfragebogens Hannover (FFbH). Z Rheumatol 1997; 56: 144–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Zink A, Mau W, Schneider M. Epidemiologische and sozialmedizinische Aspekte entzdndlich-rheumatischer Systemerkrankungen. Internist 2001; 42: 211–216, 219-22

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Statistisches Bundesamt, editor. Gesundheitsbericht far Deutschland. Kap. 7.5. Ambulante aratliche Gesundheitsversorgung. Stuttgart: Metzler-Poeschel, 1998: 396

    Google Scholar 

  46. Westhoff G, Listing J, Zink A. Loss of physical independence in rheumatoid arthritis: interview data from a representative sample of patients in rheumatologic care. Arthritis Care Res 2000; 13: 11–22

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Westhoff G. Bedarf an and Versorgung mit Leistungen aus der Pflegeversicherung bei Patienten mit rheumatoider Arthritis. Gesundheitswesen 2000; 62: 487–95

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. European Central Bank. Irrevocable euro conversion rates on 31 December 1998. Council Regulation (EC) No. 2866/98 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.eeb.int/change/conversion.htm [Accessed 2002 Mar 1]

  49. Drummond ME O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd ed. New York (NY): Oxford University Press, 1997 RA-Related Costs in Germany 393

    Google Scholar 

  50. Schadlich PK, Zeidler H, Zink A, et al. Wirtschaftlichkeit von Leflunomid bei sequentieller Basistherapie der rheumatoiden Arthritis in Deutschland. Z Rheumatol 2004; 63: 59–75

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Merkesdal S, Ruof J, Mittendorf T, et al. Gesundheitsökonomische Forschung im Bereich der chronischen Polyarthritis. Z Rheumatol 2002; 61: 21–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Ruof J, Hülsemann JL, Mittendorf T, et al. Costs of rheumatoid arthritis in Germany: a micro-costing approach based on healthcare payer’s data sources. Ann Rheum Dis 2003; 62: 544–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Payne KA, Huybrechts KF, Caro JJ, et al. Long term cost-ofillness in stroke: an international review. Pharmacoeconomics 2002; 20: 813–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Pincus T. The underestimated long term medical and economic consequences of rheumatoid arthritis. Drugs 1995; 50 Suppl. 1: 1–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Cooper NJ. Economic burden of rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review. Rheumatology 2000; 39: 28–32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. March L, Lapsley H. What are the costs to society and the potential benefits from the effective management of early rheumatoid arthritis? Best Pract Res Clin Rheumato J 2001; 15: 171–85

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Clarke AE, Levinton C, Joseph L, et al. Predicting the short term direct medical costs incurred by patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 1999; 26: 1068–75

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Cooper NJ, Mugford M, Symmons DPM, et al. Total costs and predictors of costs in individuals with early inflammatory polyarthritis: a community-based prospective study. Rheumatology 2002; 41: 767–74

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Yelin E, Wanke LA. An assessment of the annual and long-term direct costs of rheumatoid arthritis: the impact of poor function and functional decline. Arthritis Rheum 1999; 42: 1209–18

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Kobelt G, Eberhardt K, Munson L, et al. Economic consequences of the progression of rheumatoid arthritis in Sweden. Arthritis Rheum 1999; 42: 347–56

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Merkesdal S, Ruof J, Schöffski O, et al. Indirect medical costs in early rheumatoid arthritis: composition of and changes in indirect costs within the first three years of disease. Arthritis Rheum 2001; 44: 528–34

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Merkesdal S, Ruof J, Mittendorf T, et al. Indirect medical costs in the first 3 years of rheumatoid arthritis: comparison of current methodological approaches. Expert Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res 2002; 2: 313–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Merkesdal S, Mau W. Kosten der rheumatoiden Arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2002; 22: 70–7

    Google Scholar 

  64. Grove ML, Hassell AB, Hay EM, et al. Adverse reactions to disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in clinical practice. Q J Med 2001; 94: 309–19

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Bundesministerium für Gesundheit and Soziale Sicherung, editor. Statistisches Taschenbuch 2003. Arbeits- and Sozialstatistik. Bonn: Bundesministerium für Gesundheit and Soziale Sicherung, 2003

  66. Schadlich PK, Brecht JG, Gromnica-Ihle E, et al. Effizienz von Leflunomid bei sequentieller Basistherapie von rheumatoider Arthritis in Deutschland [abstract P58]. Z Rheumato J 2002; 61 Suppl. 1: 188

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH, Berlin, Germany, a member of the Sanofi-Aventis Group, for funding this study. Drs Brecht and Schädlich are the principals of InForMed GmbH, the contractor of this study. Professor Gromnica-Ihle, Professor Schneider, Dr Straub, Professor Zeidler and Professor Zink have received honoraria from Aventis Pharma Deutschland. Dr Huppertz is an employee of Aventis Pharma Deutschland. The views expressed in this paper, however, are solely those of the authors, who have no other conflicts of interest directly relevant to the content of this study.

The information contained in this manuscript has been presented in part at the 31st Congress of the German Society for Rheumatology, Berlin, Germany, September 2002,[66] and is also published in part (exclusively direct costs) in the German language.[50]

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. InForMed GmbH — Outcomes Research and Health Economics, Bureau Itzehoe, Conrad-Roentgen-Strasse 58 C, D-25524, Itzehoe, Germany

    Peter K. Schädlich & Josef G. Brecht

  2. Department of Rheumatology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany

    Henning Zeidler

  3. Epidemiology Unit, German Rheumatism Research Centre, Berlin, Germany

    Angela Zink

  4. Arthritis Clinics Berlin-Buch, Berlin, Germany

    Erika Gromnica-Ihle

  5. Department of Nephrology and Rheumatology, Heinrich-Heine-University, Düsseldorf, Germany

    Matthias Schneider

  6. TK — Technicians’ Sickfund, Hamburg, Germany

    Christoph Straub

  7. Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH, a Company of the Sanofi-Aventis Group, Berlin, Germany

    Eduard Huppertz

Authors
  1. Peter K. Schädlich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Henning Zeidler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Angela Zink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Erika Gromnica-Ihle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Matthias Schneider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Christoph Straub
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Josef G. Brecht
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Eduard Huppertz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter K. Schädlich.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schädlich, P.K., Zeidler, H., Zink, A. et al. Modelling cost effectiveness and cost utility of sequential DMARD therapy including leflunomide in rheumatoid arthritis in Germany. Pharmacoeconomics 23, 377–393 (2005). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200523040-00007

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200523040-00007

Keywords

Search

Navigation