Abstract
Background While there is overwhelming evidence for the beneficial role of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in SLE, little is known about its economic impact. We estimated annual direct, indirect, and total costs (DC, IC, TC) associated with HCQ use.
Methods A subset of patients from the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) inception cohort were assessed annually between 2014 and 2019 for health resource use, lost work-force/non-work-force productivity and concurrent HCQ use. Resource use was costed using 2021 Canadian prices and lost productivity using Statistics Canada age-and-sex specific wages. At each assessment, HCQ dose over the past year and weight were documented and patients were stratified into 1 of 3 HCQ dosage groups: non-users (0 mg/kg/day), low-intensity users (≤ 5 mg/kg/day), or high-intensity users (>5 mg/kg/day). Costs associated with HCQ dose were calculated by averaging all observations within each dosage group. Multiple random effects linear regressions adjusted for the possible confounding of age at diagnosis, sex, race/ethnicity, disease duration, geographic region, education, alcohol use, and smoking on the association between annual DC and IC and HCQ dose. A possible mediating effect of disease damage (SLICC/ACR DI) on these associations was also investigated.
Results 661 patients (89.4% female, 59.3% non-Caucasian race/ethnicity, mean age and mean disease duration at the start of economic assessments was 42.1 years and 9.5 years, respectively) were followed over a mean of 2.8 years. Across 1536 annual assessments, 36.1% of observations were provided by HCQ non-users, 43.1% by low-intensity users (mean dosage 3.4 mg/kg/day), and 20.8% by high-intensity users (mean dosage 5.9 mg/kg/day). Annual adjusted DC were higher in non-users ($9599) versus low-intensity users ($6344) and high-intensity users ($6333) (table 1). When disease damage was included in the regression, there were no significant differences in DC between dosage groups. While unadjusted IC were higher in non-users ($37,610) versus low-intensity users ($32,480) and high-intensity users ($31,418), adjusted IC did not differ. Adjusted TC were higher in non-users ($46,157) versus low-intensity users ($39,257) and high-intensity users ($37,634).
Conclusion SLE patients reported higher adjusted annual DC and TC during periods of HCQ non-use versus periods of use, regardless of the intensity of use. There was no additional cost savings in those using high intensity dosages. The cost-savings effect of HCQ could potentially be partially mediated through reduced damage. In addition to its well-established therapeutic potential, there may be an economic imperative for HCQ use in SLE patients.
