The unsustainable bubble of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatology

The high prices of biological and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) put pressure on the health-care budgets for patients with rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases. High prices appear to reflect added value. According to the value-based health-care model, value is proportional to patient-reported outcomes and experiences (satisfaction) and inversely proportional to health-care costs. The question addressed in this Viewpoint is whether the many novel DMARDs, all of which are similarly effective and safe but disproportionally expensive in comparison to conventional synthetic DMARDs, fulfil the promise of added value. It is proposed that the added value of the newest biological and targeted synthetic DMARDs is questionable at best, and that their added value is limited to patients who do not respond adequately to standard-of-care treatment. The added value for each novel DMARD decreases with each additional DMARD that obtains market authorisation, and the number of patients with treatment-refractory disease declines as a result of an ever-improving standard of care. Yet, the prices of DMARDs remain high and even tend to increase. Explanations for the perpetually high cost of these drugs despite a dubious added value relate to system characteristics, such as regulatory uncoupling of drug approval, pricing, and reimbursement; profuse and effective marketing of novel drugs; the existence of strategic patenting; and effective lobbying. To constrain DMARD expenses in rheumatology, to put more pressure on manufacturers, and to serve as many patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases as possible with affordable care, I propose that rheumatologists judge more critically which patients truly need expensive DMARDs and choose more wisely. Four simple behavioural measures are proposed to this end.