Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Vedolizumab Compared with Other Biologics in Anti-TNF-Naive Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Ulcerative Colitis in Japan.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Hernandez L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7081652 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Vedolizumab Compared with Other Biologics in Anti-TNF-Naïve Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Ulcerative Colitis in Japan.

Hernandez Luis L Kuwabara Hiroyo H Shah Anshul A Yamabe Kaoru K Burnett Heather H Fahrbach Kyle K Koufopoulou Maria M Iwakiri Ryuichi R

PharmacoEconomics 20200101 1

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Objective</h4>The aim was to assess the cost-effectiveness o ...[more]

PMID: 31552601

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:Objective: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of vedolizumab vs. infliximab in the treatment of anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α)-naïve patients with moderate-to-severe active ulcerative colitis (UC) in China. Methods: The costs and effectiveness of vedolizumab and infliximab in the treatment of anti-TNF-α naïve patients with moderate-to-severe active UC were compared using a hybrid decision tree model and a Markov model. From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, this study simulated the lifetime health benefits [quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] and costs (USD) for patients with UC from the induction phase to the maintenance phase, with an annual discount rate of 5%. The clinical efficacy and transition probability data were based on a previously published network meta-analysis. The health utility, surgical risk, biologic drug discontinuation rate, and mortality were derived from previous literature and the Chinese statistical yearbook. The cost data were based on China's drug purchase and biding platform and the results of a survey sent to clinicians in 18 tertiary hospitals. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) were performed to validate the robustness of the models' assumptions and specific parameter estimates. Results: The results of the base-case analyses showed that compared with infliximab, vedolizumab led to a gain of 0.25 QALYs (9.56 vs. 9.31 QALYs) and was less expensive by $7,349 ($180,138 vs. 187,487), indicating that the use of vedolizumab was a dominant strategy. The results of one-way sensitivity analyses suggested that the annual discount rate and health-state costs had the greatest impact, but the results were otherwise consistent with those of the base-case analyses. The PSAs suggested that vedolizumab had a 98.6% probability of being effective at a threshold of 3 times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in China in 2020. Conclusion: Compared with infliximab, vedolizumab appears to be a more cost-effective option in the treatment of anti-TNF-α naïve adult patients with moderate-to-severe, active UC in China.

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.

Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Vedolizumab Compared with Other Biologics in Anti-TNF-Naive Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Ulcerative Colitis in Japan.

Publications

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Vedolizumab Compared with Other Biologics in Anti-TNF-Naïve Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Ulcerative Colitis in Japan.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets