Cost-Effectiveness of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring-Guided Adalimumab Therapy in Rheumatic Diseases: A Prospective, Pragmatic Trial

Introduction To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) based on serum adalimumab levels compared to standard of care in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis. Methods This was a non-inferiority, multicentric, non-randomized, pragmatic trial including adult patients diagnosed with moderate-to-severe, clinically stable rheumatic diseases treated with adalimumab. Consecutive patients were assigned 1:2 to the control (CG) or the intervention group (IG), based on the site of inclusion, and followed up for 18 months. Adalimumab serum levels were measured at each study visit and released to the IG only to modify dosing strategy. Data on disease activity, healthcare resource utilization and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measured through the EQ-5D-5L were collected. Number of persistent and overall flares, time to first flare, days experiencing high disease activity, total direct costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. Results Of the 169 recruited patients, 150 were included in the analysis (52 and 98 patients in the CG and IG, respectively). The primary endpoint was not met as persistent flares were not significantly lower in the IG, although mean (SD) number of flares was numerically lower in the IG (0.67 [0.70] versus 0.90 [0.82], P = 0.073), respectively. Based on EQ-5D-5L utilities, HRQoL was significantly higher in the IG at 3 ( P = 0.001) and 6 months ( P = 0.035), which overall translated into 0.075 QALYs gained per patient for the IG at month 18. Overall, direct costs were significantly lower for the IG patients (€15,311.59 [4,870.04] versus €17,378.46 [6,556.51], P = 0.030), resulting in the intervention being dominant, leading to increased QALY at a lower overall cost Conclusion Adalimumab dose tapering based on TDM for rheumatic patients led to an increased quality of life and QALY gain and entailed lower costs, being a more cost-effective alternative than clinically guided management.