Dataset Information

Identification of the Most Cost-effective Position of Vedolizumab Among the Available Biologic Drugs for the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis.

ABSTRACT:

Background and aims

There are limited data on the most cost-effective sequencing of biologics for ulcerative colitis [UC].

Methods

We used Markov modelling to identify the most cost-effective position for vedolizumab among biologics for steroid-dependent UC, with a base-case of a 35-year-old male. We assessed three treatment algorithms, with vedolizumab use: prior to an initial anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha [anti-TNFα] and azathioprine [Algorithm 1]; prior to a second anti-TNF and azathioprine [Algorithm 2]; and prior to colectomy [Algorithm 3]. The initial anti-TNF could be either infliximab or adalimumab. Transition probabilities, costs, and quality-adjusted life-year estimates were derived from published estimates, Medicare, and the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Primary analyses included 100 trials of 100 000 individuals over 1 year, with a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$100,000. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess our findings.

Results

From a population perspective, when both infliximab and adalimumab are available, vedolizumab was preferred as the first biologic if ≥14% of initial anti-TNF use was adalimumab. If infliximab is the primary biologic, vedolizumab use after infliximab [Algorithm 2] and prior to adalimumab was the most cost-effective strategy. All models were sensitive to biologic pricing.

Conclusions

This simulation demonstrated that the most cost-effective strategy in UC depends on the proportion of patients using adalimumab as the initial anti-TNF. If adalimumab was ≥14%, vedolizumab was preferred as the first biologic. When only infliximab was available for first-line therapy, the most cost-effective position of vedolizumab was prior to cycling to adalimumab.

SUBMITTER: Scott FI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7303595 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundVedolizumab is a biologic drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of adults with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) who have had inadequate response to, lost response to, or were intolerant of immunomodulators or tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker therapy, or who had an inadequate response with, were intolerant to, or demonstrated dependence on corticosteroid therapy. The biologics approved by the FDA for CD and/or UC include adalimumab, infliximab, golimumab, certolizumab, and ustekinumab.ObjectiveTo assess the budget impact of including vedolizumab in a health plan formulary among current options as a preferred first-line biologic therapy for UC and CD rather than only for patients who failed anti-TNF therapy.MethodsWe developed a 3-year budget impact model for a 1-million-member health plan. Comparators included all currently approved brand-name biologic and biosimilar agents for the treatment of UC (ie, adalimumab, infliximab, and golimumab) and CD (ie, adalimumab, certolizumab, infliximab, and ustekinumab). Clinical inputs included therapy response probabilities, disease remission, and surgery risk. Given the lack of head-to-head clinical trials, we estimated indirect comparisons of treatment efficacy based on clinical trial data using the Bucher method. The drug and medical costs were obtained from published literature. The model compared hypothetical health plan costs for 2 scenarios-(1) a market mix with vedolizumab included on the formulary with currently existing first- and second-line preferred treatments, and (2) vedolizumab included only with existing preferred second-line treatments on the hypothetical formulary. These scenarios were compared in the context of 3 hypothetical health plan formulary cases.ResultsIncluding vedolizumab in a hypothetical formulary with currently preferred first-line biologic treatment options (Scenario 1) resulted in cost-savings compared with vedolizumab as a preferred second-line biologic option (Scenario 2). The total cost-savings were from $0.13 million to $1.63 million in year 1, and from $0.38 million to $4.68 million in year 3. The per-member per-month cost-savings were from $0.01 to $0.14 in year 1 and from $0.03 to $0.39 in year 3.ConclusionBased on our model's results, including vedolizumab among the current health plan formulary biologic options as a preferred first-line treatment for UC and CD can result in substantial cost-savings compared with including vedolizumab as a preferred second-line treatment only.

Project description:Background & aimsPatients with chronic ulcerative colitis are at increased risk for colorectal neoplasia (CRN). Surveillance by white-light endoscopy (WLE) or chromoendoscopy may reduce risk of CRN, but these strategies are underused. Analysis of DNA from stool samples (sDNA) can detect CRN with high levels of sensitivity, but it is not clear if this approach is cost-effective. We simulated these strategies for CRN detection to determine which approach is most cost-effective.MethodsWe adapted a previously published Markov model to simulate the clinical course of chronic ulcerative colitis, the incidence of cancer or dysplasia, and costs and benefits of care with 4 surveillance strategies: (1) analysis of sDNA and diagnostic chromoendoscopy for patients with positive results, (2) analysis of sDNA with diagnostic WLE for patients with positive results, (3) chromoendoscopy with targeted collection of biopsies, or (4) WLE with random collection of biopsies. Costs were based on 2014 Medicare reimbursement. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (incremental cost/incremental difference in quality-adjusted life-years) compared with no surveillance and a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000.ResultsAll strategies fell below the willingness-to-pay threshold at 2-year intervals. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $16,362 per quality-adjusted life-year for sDNA analysis with diagnostic chromoendoscopy; $18,643 per quality-adjusted life-year for sDNA analysis with diagnostic WLE; $23,830 per quality-adjusted life-year for chromoendoscopy alone; and $27,907 per quality-adjusted life-year for WLE alone. In sensitivity analyses, sDNA analysis with diagnostic chromoendoscopy was more cost-effective than chromoendoscopy alone, up to a cost of $1135 per sDNA test. sDNA analysis remained cost-effective at all rates of compliance; when combined with diagnostic chromoendoscopy, this approach was preferred over chromoendoscopy alone, when the specificity of the sDNA test for CRN was >65%.ConclusionsBased on a Markov model, surveillance for CRN is cost-effective for patients with chronic ulcerative colitis. Analysis of sDNA with chromoendoscopies for patients with positive results was more cost-effective than chromoendoscopy or WLE alone.