Display options
Share it on

Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;3:73-8. doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S15988. Epub 2011 Mar 21.

The economic burden of TNFα inhibitors and other biologic treatments in Norway.

ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR

Jan Norum, Wenche Koldingsnes, Torfinn Aanes, Margaret Aarag Antonsen, Jon Florholmen, Masahide Kondo

Affiliations

  1. Northern Norway Regional Health Authority, Bodø, Norway;

PMID: 21935335 PMCID: PMC3169971 DOI: 10.2147/CEOR.S15988

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Costly biologic therapies have improved function and quality of life for patients suffering from rheumatic and inflammatory bowel diseases. In this survey, we aimed to document and analyze the costs.

METHODS: In 2008, the total costs of tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitors and other biologic agents in Norway were registered prospectively. In addition to costs, the pattern of use in the four Norwegian health regions was analyzed. The expenses were calculated in Norwegian krone and converted into Euros.

RESULTS: The pattern of use was similar in all four regions, indicating that national guidelines are followed. Whereas the cost was similar in the southeast, western, and central regions, the expenses per thousand inhabitants were 1.56 times higher in the northern region. This indicates that patients in the northern region experienced a lower threshold for access to these drugs. The gap in costs between trusts within northern Norway was about to be closed. The Departments of Rheumatology and Gastroenterology had the highest consumption rates.

CONCLUSION: The total cost of biologic agents was significant. Northern Norway had among the highest consumption rates worldwide. This can partly be explained. Further exploration calls for a national registry for the use of these drugs.

Keywords: Norway; TNFα inhibitors; biologic agents; cost

References

  1. Ann Rheum Dis. 2001 Dec;60(12):1156-7 - PubMed
  2. Curr Med Res Opin. 2007 Aug;23(8):1749-59 - PubMed
  3. Gastroenterology. 2001 Jun;120(7):1640-56 - PubMed
  4. Arthritis Rheum. 2005 Dec 15;53(6):850-5 - PubMed
  5. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23(3):289-98 - PubMed
  6. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2007 Oct;21(5):929-42 - PubMed
  7. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004 Summer;20(3):274-9 - PubMed
  8. J Manag Care Pharm. 2006 Sep;12(7):555-69 - PubMed
  9. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2007 Aug;46(8):1345-54 - PubMed
  10. Arthritis Rheum. 2004 Dec 15;51(6):964-73 - PubMed
  11. Health Technol Assess. 2007 Aug;11(28):1-158, iii-iv - PubMed
  12. Health Technol Assess. 2006 Nov;10(42):iii-iv, xi-xiii, 1-229 - PubMed
  13. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(3):1-67 - PubMed
  14. Gut. 1996 Nov;39(5):690-7 - PubMed
  15. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2007 Nov;46(11):1729-35 - PubMed
  16. Arthritis Rheum. 2008 Feb 15;59(2):234-40 - PubMed
  17. Eur J Health Econ. 2008 Jan;8 Suppl 2:S61-86 - PubMed
  18. Joint Bone Spine. 2008 Jan;75(1):25-8 - PubMed

Publication Types