Dataset Information

A Systematic Review of the Cost-Effectiveness of Biologics for Ulcerative Colitis.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Stawowczyk E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5840213 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Systematic Review of the Cost-Effectiveness of Biologics for Ulcerative Colitis.

Stawowczyk Ewa E Kawalec Paweł P

PharmacoEconomics 20180401 4

<h4>Background</h4>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 ...[more]

PMID: 29260508

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of tofacitinib versus current biologics, considering combinations of first-line (1L) and second-line (2L) therapies, from a Japanese payer's perspective in patients with moderate-to-severe active UC following an inadequate response to conventional therapy and in those who were naïve to biologics.MethodsA cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted during the time horizon specified in the Markov model, which considers a patient's lifetime as 60 years and an annual discount rate of 2% on costs and effects. The model compared tofacitinib with vedolizumab, infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, and ustekinumab. The time of active treatment was divided into induction and maintenance phases. Patients not responding to their biologic treatment after induction or during the maintenance phase were switched to a subsequent line of therapy. Treatment response and remission probabilities (for induction and maintenance phases) were obtained through a systematic literature review and a network meta-analysis that employed a multinomial analysis with fixed effects. Patient characteristics were sourced from the OCTAVE Induction trials. Mean utilities associated with UC health states and adverse events (AEs) were obtained from published sources. Direct medical costs related to drug acquisition, administration, surgery, patient management, and AEs were derived from the JMDC database analysis, which corresponded with the medical procedure fees from 2021. The drug prices were adjusted to April 2021. Further validation through all processes by clinical experts in Japan was conducted to fit the costs to real-world practices. Scenario and sensitivity analyses were also performed to confirm the accuracy and robustness of the base-case results.ResultsIn the base-case, the treatment pattern including 1L tofacitinib was more cost-effective than vedolizumab, infliximab, golimumab, and ustekinumab for 1L therapies in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained (based on the Japanese threshold of 5,000,000 yen/QALY [38,023 United States dollars {USD}/QALY]). The base-case results demonstrated that the incremental costs would be reduced for all biologics, and decreases in incremental QALYs were observed for all biologics other than adalimumab. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was found to be dominant for adalimumab; for the other biologics, it was found to be less costly and less efficacious. The efficiency frontier on the cost-effectiveness plane indicated that tofacitinib-infliximab and infliximab-tofacitinib were more cost-effective than the other treatment patterns. When infliximab-tofacitinib was compared with tofacitinib-infliximab, the ICER was 282,609,856 yen/QALY (2,149,157 USD/QALY) and the net monetary benefit (NMB) was -12,741,342 yen (-96,894 USD) with a threshold of 5,000,000 yen (38,023 USD) in Japan. Therefore, infliximab-tofacitinib was not acceptable by this threshold, and tofacitinib-infliximab was the cost-effective treatment pattern.ConclusionThe current analysis suggests that the treatment pattern including 1L tofacitinib is a cost-effective alternative to the biologics for patients with moderate-to-severe UC from a Japanese payer's perspective.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Vedolizumab (VDZ) was approved by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare in 2018 for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe active ulcerative colitis (UC). The comparative cost-effectiveness of VDZ compared with other biologics is unknown in Japan. This information could be useful for decision makers at the time of repricing biologics for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe UC. OBJECTIVE:The aim was to assess the cost-effectiveness of VDZ versus other branded biologics for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe UC who were anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-naïve, from the Japanese public healthcare payer perspective. METHODS:A hybrid decision tree/Markov model was developed to predict the number of patients who achieved response and remission at the end of the induction phase and sustained it during the maintenance phase, translating this into quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs. Treatment-related adverse events, discontinuation and surgery, and their impact on QALYs and costs were also modeled. A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis were conducted to estimate the comparative efficacy of each treatment versus placebo. Rates of adverse events, surgery, surgery complications, and utilities were from the literature. Costs (2018 Japanese yen) were obtained from the Japanese National Health Insurance drug price list and medical fee table and local claims databases. Clinical and economic outcomes were projected over a lifetime and discounted at 2% annually. RESULTS:Over a lifetime, VDZ yielded greater QALYs and cost savings compared with golimumab and was cost-effective compared with adalimumab and infliximab (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ¥4,821,940 and ¥4,687,692, respectively). Deterministic and probabilistic analyses supported the robustness of the findings in the base-case analysis, indicating that VDZ was either dominant or cost-effective in most scenarios and replications. The main limitations of this analysis include excluding tofacitinib and infliximab biosimilar as comparators, health-state utility estimates were obtained from population studies in the United Kingdom, and the impact of subsequent (i.e., second-line) biologic treatment was not evaluated. CONCLUSION:Our analysis suggests that VDZ is dominant or cost-effective compared with other branded biologics for the treatment of anti-TNF-naïve patients with moderate-to-severe UC in Japan.

Project description:Background and objectivesEconomic evaluations provide information to aid the optimal utilization of limited healthcare resources. Costs of biologics for Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are remarkably high, which makes these agents an important target for economic evaluations. This systematic review aims to identify existing studies examining the cost-effectiveness of biologics for RA, assess their quality and report their results systematically.MethodsA literature search covering Medline, Scopus, Cochrane library, ACP Journal club and Web of Science was performed in March 2013. The cost-utility analyses (CUAs) of one or more available biological drugs for the treatment of RA in adults were included. Two independent investigators systematically collected information and assessed the quality of the studies. To enable the comparison of the results, all costs were converted to 2013 euro.ResultsOf the 4890 references found in the literature search, 41 CUAs were included in the current systematic review. While considering only direct costs, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) ranged from 39,000 to 1,273,000 €/quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained in comparison to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs) in cDMARD naïve patients. Among patients with an insufficient response to cDMARDs, biologics were associated with ICERs ranging from 12,000 to 708,000 €/QALY. Rituximab was found to be the most cost-effective alternative compared to other biologics among the patients with an insufficient response to TNFi.ConclusionsWhen 35,000 €/QALY is considered as a threshold for the ICER, TNFis do not seem to be cost-effective among cDMARD naïve patients and patients with an insufficient response to cDMARDs. With thresholds of 50,000 to 100,000 €/QALY biologics might be cost-effective among patients with an inadequate response to cDMARDs. Standardization of multiattribute utility instruments and a validated standard conversion method for missing utility measures would enable better comparison between CUAs.

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:BackgroundBiological therapies are increasingly used to treat ulcerative colitis (UC).AimTo compare the efficacy of biologics in adults with moderately-to-severely active UC, stratified by prior exposure to anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy.MethodsA systematic literature review was undertaken to identify studies of biologics approved for UC. Network meta-analysis was conducted for endpoints at induction and maintenance.ResultsSeven studies were included in the meta-analysis of induction treatment for anti-TNF therapy-naïve patients. All biologics were more effective than placebo in inducing clinical response, clinical remission, and mucosal healing. Infliximab demonstrated a statistically significant improvement over adalimumab in clinical response (odds ratio [OR] [95% credible interval (CrI)]: 2.19 [1.35-3.55]), clinical remission (OR [95% CrI]: 2.81 [1.49-5.49]), and mucosal healing (OR [95% CrI]: 2.23 [1.21-4.14]); there were no other significant differences between biologics for induction efficacy. Five studies were included in the meta-analysis of maintenance treatment, two studies rerandomised responder patients at end of induction, and three followed the same patients 'straight through'. To account for design differences, the number of responders at end of induction was assumed to be equivalent to the number rerandomised. Vedolizumab showed significantly different durable clinical response from comparators (OR [95% CrI] infliximab 3.18 [1.14-9.20], golimumab 2.33 [1.04-5.41], and adalimumab 3.96 [1.67-9.84]). In anti-TNF therapy-experienced patients, only vedolizumab and adalimumab could be compared. At induction, no significant differences in efficacy were seen. During maintenance, vedolizumab showed significantly improved rates of mucosal healing versus adalimumab (OR [95% CrI]: 6.72 [1.36-41.0]).ConclusionsThis study expands the understanding of comparative efficacies of biologic treatments for UC, encompassing outcomes and populations not previously studied. All biologic treatments were effective for UC during induction. Vedolizumab demonstrated possible clinical benefits in the maintenance setting versus all comparators, irrespective of prior anti-TNF exposure and after adjusting for differences in study design.

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:BackgroundOnset of effect of advanced therapies is an important parameter due to symptom load and risk of disease complications in moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC), but comparative data are lacking. Therefore, we aimed to assess the comparative onset of efficacy of biological therapies and small molecules for this patient population.MethodsIn this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to 24 August 2022, for randomised controlled trials or open-label studies assessing the efficacy of biologics or small molecule drugs within the first six weeks of treatment in adults with UC. The co-primary outcomes were the induction of clinical response and clinical remission at week 2. Network meta-analyses was conducted under the Bayesian framework. This study is registered with PROSPERO: CRD42021250236.FindingsThe systematic literature search identified 20,406 citations, of which 25 studies comprising 11,074 patients fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Upadacitinib ranked highest for induction of clinical response and clinical remission at week 2 and was significantly superior to all agents but tofacitinib, which ranked second highest. Although the rankings remained consistent, no differences between upadacitinib and biological therapies were demonstrated in the sensitivity analyses of partial Mayo clinic score response or resolution of rectal bleeding at week 2. Tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF) inhibitors were significantly superior to vedolizumab and ustekinumab for patient-reported outcome-2 (PRO-2) remission at week 2 in bio-naïve patients. Filgotinib 100 mg, ustekinumab, and ozanimod ranked lowest across all endpoints.InterpretationIn this network meta-analysis, we found upadacitinib to be significantly superior to all agents but tofacitinib for the induction of clinical response and clinical remission two weeks after treatment initiation. In contrast, ustekinumab and ozanimod ranked lowest. Our findings help to establish the evidence regarding the onset of efficacy of advanced therapies.FundingNone.

Dataset Information

A Systematic Review of the Cost-Effectiveness of Biologics for Ulcerative Colitis.

Publications

A Systematic Review of the Cost-Effectiveness of Biologics for Ulcerative Colitis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets