Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of 1-Year Treatment with Golimumab/Standard Care and Standard Care Alone for Ulcerative Colitis in Poland.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of induction and maintenance treatment up to 1 year of ulcerative colitis with golimumab/standard care and standard care alone in Poland.

Methods

A Markov model was used to estimate the expected costs and effects of golimumab/standard care and a standard care alone. For each treatment option the costs and quality adjusted life years were calculated to estimate the incremental cost-utility ratio. The analysis was performed from the perspective of the Polish public payer and society over a 30-years time horizon. The clinical parameters were derived mainly from the PURSUIT-SC and PURSUIT-M clinical trials. Different direct and indirect costs and utility values were assigned to the various model health states.

Results

The treatment of ulcerative colitis patients with golimumab/standard care instead of a standard care alone resulted in 0.122 additional years of life with full health. The treatment with golimumab/standard care was found to be more expensive than treatment with the standard care alone from the public payer perspective and from social perspective. The incremental cost-utility ratio of golimumab/standard care compared to the standard care alone is estimated to be 391,252 PLN/QALY gained (93,155 €/QALYG) from public payer perspective and 374,377 PLN/QALY gained (89,137 €/QALYG) from social perspective.

Conclusions

The biologic treatment of ulcerative colitis patients with golimumab/standard care is more effective but also more costly compared with standard care alone.

SUBMITTER: Stawowczyk E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4975491 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of 1-Year Treatment with Golimumab/Standard Care and Standard Care Alone for Ulcerative Colitis in Poland.

Stawowczyk Ewa E Kawalec Paweł P Pilc Andrzej A

PloS one 20160805 8

<h4>Objective</h4>The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of induction and maintenance treatment up to 1 year of ulcerative colitis with golimumab/standard care and standard care alone in Poland.<h4>Methods</h4>A Markov model was used to estimate the expected costs and effects of golimumab/standard care and a standard care alone. For each treatment option the costs and quality adjusted life years were calculated to estimate the incremental cost-utility ratio. The analysi ...[more]

PMID: 27494322

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors have improved treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC), but loss of response remains a frequent problem. The anti-TNF agent, golimumab, was approved in Switzerland for the treatment of UC in 2014. This study aims to summarize the experience of golimumab in a real-world setting in Switzerland.MethodsWe analyzed real-world data from 1769 UC patients from the Swiss Inflammatory Bowel Disease Cohort (SIBDC) study and performed a chart review of golimumab-treated patients. We extracted the partial Mayo score at t0 (baseline), t1 (2-16 weeks), t2 (17-35 weeks), and t3 (36-89 weeks). The primary endpoint was clinical response at t1, defined as marked improvement in partial Mayo score and objective parameters. Clinical remission was defined as resolution of symptoms and normalization of objective parameters.ResultsOur chart review included 103 UC patients with golimumab treatment (5.8% of all SIBDC UC patients); only 16 (15.5%) were anti-TNF naïve. Sixty-three patients remained on golimumab (61.2%) after 180 days, 51 (44.7%) after 365 days, and 34 (33%) after 630 days after the start of treatment. Upon golimumab treatment, the partial Mayo score decreased from 4 [interquartile range (IQR): 2-6] at t0 to 2 (IQR: 0-4) at t1, 1 (IQR: 0-3.5) at t2, and 1 (IQR: 0-3) at t3 (p < 0.001 for all comparisons with t0). The primary endpoint, clinical response at t1, could be evaluated in 52 patients and was met in 15 individuals (28.8%). Clinical remission at t1 was observed in 8 out of 52 patients (15.4%). Golimumab was generally well tolerated, one patient developed meningitis. The most frequent reasons to stop treatment were primary and secondary non-response.ConclusionGolimumab was used in 5.8% of Swiss UC patients, mainly in biologic-experienced individuals. Golimumab treatment was associated with a sustained reduction of symptoms and clinical response in approximately 30% of patients.[ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00488631].

Project description:BackgroundAlthough electronic health interventions are considered safe and efficient, evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of telemonitoring in inflammatory bowel disease is lacking.ObjectiveWe aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of the Telemonitorización de la Enfermedad de Crohn y Colitis Ulcerosa (Telemonitoring of Crohn's Disease and Ulcerative Colitis [TECCU]) Web platform (G_TECCU intervention group) for telemonitoring complex inflammatory bowel disease, compared with standard care (G_control) and nurse-assisted telephone care (G_NT intervention group).MethodsWe analyzed cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective by comparing the 3 follow-up methods used in a previous 24-week randomized controlled trial, conducted at a tertiary university hospital in Spain. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease who initiated immunosuppressants or biologic agents, or both, to control inflammatory activity were recruited consecutively. Data on the effects on disease activity (using clinical indexes) and quality-adjusted life-years (using the EuroQol 5 dimensions questionnaire) were collected. We calculated the costs of health care, equipment, and patients' productivity and social activity impairment. We compared the mean costs per patient, utilities, and bootstrapped differences.ResultsWe included 63 patients (21 patients per group). TECCU saved €1005 (US $1100) per additional patient in remission compared with G_control (95% CI €-13,518 to 3137; US $-14,798 to 3434), with a 79.96% probability of being more effective at lower costs. Compared with G_NT, TECCU saved €2250 (US $2463) per additional patient in remission (95% CI €-15,363 to 11,086; US $-16,817 to 12,135), and G_NT saved €538 (US $589) compared with G_control (95% CI €-6475 to 5303; US $-7088 to 5805). G_TECCU and G_NT showed an 84% and 67% probability, respectively, of producing a cost saving per additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) compared with G_control, considering those simulations that involved negative incremental QALYs as well.ConclusionsThere is a high probability that the TECCU Web platform is more cost-effective than standard and telephone care in the short term. Further research considering larger cohorts and longer time horizons is required.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02943538; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02943538 (http://www. webcitation.org/746CRRtDN).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic autoimmune inflammation of the colon. The condition significantly decreases quality of life and generates a substantial economic burden for healthcare payers, patients and the society in which they live. Some patients require chronic pharmacotherapy, and access to novel biologic drugs might be crucial for long-term remission. The analyses of cost-effectiveness for biologic drugs are necessary to assess their efficiency and provide the best available drugs to patients. OBJECTIVE:Our aim was to collect and assess the quality of economic analyses carried out for biologic agents used in the treatment of UC, as well as to summarize evidence on the drivers of cost-effectiveness and evaluate the transferability and generalizability of conclusions. METHODS:A systematic database review was conducted using MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry and CRD0. Both authors independently reviewed the identified articles to determine their eligibility for final review. Hand searching of references in collected papers was also performed to find any relevant articles. The reporting quality of economic analyses included was evaluated by two reviewers using the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement checklist. We reviewed the sensitivity analyses in cost-effectiveness analyses to identify the variables that may have changed the conclusions of the study. Key drivers of cost-effectiveness were selected by identifying uncertain parameters that caused the highest change of the results of the analyses compared with base-case results. RESULTS:Of the 576 identified records, 87 were excluded as duplicates and 16 studies were included in the final review; evaluations for Canada, the UK and Poland were mostly performed. The majority of the evaluations revealed were performed for infliximab (approximately 75% of total volume); however, some assessments were also performed for adalimumab (50%) and golimumab (31%). Only three analyses were conducted for vedolizumab, whereas no relevant studies were found for etrolizumab and tofacitinib. The reporting quality of the included economic analyses was assessed as high, with an average score of 21 points per 24 maximum possible (range 14-23 points according to the ISPOR CHEERS statement checklist). In the case of most analyses, quality-adjusted life-years were used as a clinical outcome, and endpoints such as remission, response and mucosal healing were less common. The higher clinical effectiveness (based on response rates) of biological treatment over non-biological treatments was presented in revealed analyses. The incremental cost-utility ratios for biologics, compared with standard care, varied significantly between the studies and ranged from US$36,309 to US$456,979. The lowest value was obtained for infliximab and the highest for the treatment scheme including infliximab 5 mg/kg and infliximab 10 mg/kg + adalimumab. The change of utility weights and clinical parameters had the most significant influence on the results of the analysis; the variable related to surgery was the least sensitive. CONCLUSIONS:Limited data on the cost-effectiveness of UC therapy were identified. In the majority of studies, the lack of cost-effectiveness was revealed for biologics, which was associated with their high costs. Clinical outcomes are transferable to other countries and could be generalized; however, cost inputs are country-specific and therefore limit the transferability and generalizability of conclusions. The key drivers and variables that showed the greatest effect on the analysis results were utility weights and clinical parameters.

Project description:Background and objectivesUlcerative colitis is highly prevalent in Canada and cost-effective ulcerative colitis therapies are warranted. Vedolizumab subcutaneous (SC) formulation was recently approved for ulcerative colitis maintenance therapy. We assessed vedolizumab SC cost effectiveness vs conventional and advanced therapeutics in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis from a Canadian public healthcare payer perspective.MethodsA hybrid decision tree/Markov model was developed to evaluate vedolizumab SC costs, quality-adjusted life-years, and cost effectiveness vs conventional therapy, adalimumab SC, infliximab intravenous, golimumab SC, tofacitinib, ustekinumab SC, and vedolizumab intravenous. This model predicts the number of patients achieving clinical response and remission after treatment induction, and sustained benefit during maintenance treatment. To account for statistical uncertainties, the base-case analysis was conducted in a probabilistic manner. Scenario analyses examined the impact of previous treatment with anti-tumor necrosis factor agents, dose escalation, loss of efficacy, and treatment adherence.ResultsIn the base-case analysis, conventional therapy was the most cost-effective therapeutic option in the overall population. Vedolizumab SC was cost effective and dominant compared with other advanced therapies (adalimumab, golimumab, infliximab, tofacitinib 5 mg, ustekinumab, and vedolizumab intravenous). The annual vedolizumab SC cost per patient was reduced vs ustekinumab SC, tofacitinib 5 mg, vedolizumab intravenous, and golimumab SC by $47,024, $3251, $2120, and $2004 (Canadian dollars), respectively, and exceeded that of infliximab, adalimumab, and conventional therapy by $582, $3293, and $41,024, respectively. Among the treatments, vedolizumab SC generated the highest quality-adjusted life-years overall (14.21), which translated into the best incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-years gained over conventional therapy in the overall population ($109,374) and in anti-tumor necrosis factor-naïve and anti-tumor necrosis factor-experienced patients ($41,658/$114,287).ConclusionsConventional therapy offered the most cost-effective therapeutic option followed by vedolizumab SC. Based on a $50,000/quality-adjusted life-year threshold, vedolizumab was cost effective in anti-tumor necrosis factor-naïve patients but not the overall population also when compared to conventional therapy.

Project description:The safety and efficacy of subcutaneous golimumab through 2 years of maintenance therapy was evaluated in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC).Patients completing treatment through week 52 (placebo, golimumab 50, 100, every-4-weeks (q4w)) and evaluations at week 54 were eligible for this long-term extension (LTE) trial. Patients receiving placebo or golimumab 50?mg with worsening disease during the LTE could receive golimumab 100?mg. Efficacy assessments included the Mayo physician's global assessment (PGA) subscore, inflammatory bowel disease questionnaire (IBDQ), and corticosteroid use. Patients who were randomized to golimumab at PURSUIT-Maintenance baseline and continued receiving golimumab during the LTE were analyzed for efficacy (using intention-to-treat and "as observed" analyses; N=195) and safety (N=200). Patients treated with golimumab at any time from induction baseline through week 104 (N=1240) constituted the overall safety population.Baseline demographics and disease characteristics of patients entering the LTE receiving golimumab were similar to those of all patients randomized to golimumab maintenance at baseline. At week 104, 80.5% (157/195) of patients had a PGA=0/1 (range weeks 56-104: 80.5-91.8%) and 56.4% (110/195) had a PGA=0 (weeks 56-104: range: 53.8-58.5%). Through week 104, 86% of patients maintained inactive or mild disease activity. Among 174 corticosteroid-free patients at week 54, 88.5% remained corticosteroid-free at week 104. At week 104, 62.2% (120/193) had an IBDQ score ?170. Tuberculosis, opportunistic infection, and malignancy rates were low, and the overall safety profile was similar to that reported through week 54. Two non-melanoma skin cancers, one metastatic colon cancer, and two deaths (biventricular heart dysfunction, sepsis) occurred between weeks 54 and 104.Subcutaneous golimumab q4w through 2 years maintained clinical benefit and reduced corticosteroid use among patients who did well in the maintenance study. No new safety signals were observed.

Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of 1-Year Treatment with Golimumab/Standard Care and Standard Care Alone for Ulcerative Colitis in Poland.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of 1-Year Treatment with Golimumab/Standard Care and Standard Care Alone for Ulcerative Colitis in Poland.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets