Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness of Vedolizumab in the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Crohn's Disease in China.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

To compare the cost-effectiveness of vedolizumab with that of conventional therapy in patients with moderate-to-severe active Crohn's disease (CD) in China.

Methods

A decision tree and Markov model were built to predict the lifetime cost and health outcomes in the induction phase and maintenance phase of vedolizumab treatment and conventional therapy (a combination of corticosteroids, immunosuppressants, and aminosalicylates) in adult patients with moderate-to-severe active CD from the perspective of China's healthcare system. Clinical efficacy and health utility were derived from the GEMINI 2 and GEMINI 3 trials and published literature. Costs were mainly obtained from clinical physician surveys in China and are presented in 2020 US dollars. Health outcomes (quality-adjusted life years, QALYs) and costs were discounted at an annual rate of 5%. The incremental cost per QALY gained was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of the two treatments. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) were performed to test the robustness of the model.

Results

The model predicted more QALYs (9.92 vs 9.00 QALYs) and lower incurred costs ($288,284 vs $309,680) in vedolizumab than in conventional therapy in a mixed population (anti-TNF-naïve and anti-TNF-failure populations) over a lifetime horizon in the base-case analysis. Similar results were observed in the anti-TNF-naïve and anti-TNF-failure subgroups of patients with CD. One-way sensitivity analysis results suggested that health state cost was the most influential factor in the model. The PSA results supported the dominance of vedolizumab in the base-case analysis.

Conclusion

Vedolizumab appears to be a cost-effective strategy option in the treatment of adult patients with moderate-to-severe active CD in China in both anti-TNF-naïve and anti-TNF-failure populations.

SUBMITTER: Zhou T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8342392 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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: Lupus nephritis (LN) is the most common secondary glomerular diseases that will cause end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and renal-related death. The cost-effectiveness of various treatments for LN recommended by official guidelines has not been investigated in China. Our study is to evaluate clinical prognosis and cost-effectiveness of the current treatments for severe LN. Methods: A Markov model was simulated for 1,000 LN patients of 30 years old, over a 3-years and 30-years lifetime horizon respectively. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of six therapeutic strategies from a societal perspective, with cyclophosphamide (CYC) or mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) induction therapy followed by CYC, MMF or azathioprine (AZA) maintenance therapy. Main outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and clinical prognosis. One and three times gross domestic product (GDP) per capita were used as the willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. We also carried out sensitivity analysis under a lifetime horizon. Results: Compared with the baseline strategy of CYC induction and maintenance, for a 3-years horizon the most cost-effective strategy was CYC induction and AZA maintenance with $448 per QALY gained, followed by MMF induction and AZA maintenance which however was not cost-effective under the one times GDP per capita WTP threshold. For a lifetime horizon, CYC induction and AZA maintenance remained the most cost-effective strategy but MMF induction and maintenance became cost-effective under the one times GDP per capita WTP threshold and achieved a higher complete remission rate (57.2 versus 48.9%) and lower risks of ESRD (3.3 versus 5.8%) and all-cause mortality (36.0 versus 40.8%). The risk of developing ESRD during maintenance was the most influential parameter affecting ICER. Conclusions: The strategy of CYC induction followed by AZA maintenance was the most cost-effective strategy in China for short-term treatment, while the strategy of MMF in both induction and maintenance became cost-effective and yielded more desirable clinical outcomes for lifetime treatment. The uncertainty analysis supported the need for monitoring the progression to ESRD.

Project description:Objectives: This study analyzed the long-term cost-effectiveness of fluticasone/umeclidinium/vilanterol triple combination (FF/UMEC/VI) vs. budesonide/formoterol double combination (BUD/FOR) in the treatment of moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and provides evidence for COPD treatment decisions. Methods: From the perspective of the healthcare system, a Markov model was established that consists of four states-stable period, non-severely deteriorating period, severely deteriorating period, and death-according to real-world COPD progression. The model period comprises 6 months, with a cycle length of 14 years. The initial state, transition probabilities, costs, and utility data were collected from the FULFIL trial, published literature, hospital record surveys, and China Health Statistics Yearbook. The discount rate was 5%, and the threshold was set as the Chinese per capita GDP in 2020 (¥72,447). The cost, utility, transition probabilities, and discount rate were calculated through TreeagePro11 software. The results were analyzed via one-way factor analysis and probability sensitivity analysis. Results: The baseline study shows that the 14-year treatment for FF/UMEC/VI and BUD/FOR groups are ¥199,765.55 and ¥173,030.05 with effectiveness at 8.54 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and 7.73 QALYs, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is ¥33,006.80/QALY, which is below the threshold. A tornado diagram of a one-way sensitivity analysis shows that the top three factors that affected the results are the non-severe deterioration rates of FF/UMEC/VI, the cost of FF/UMEC/VI and the non-severe deterioration rates of BUD/FOR. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis shows that FF/UMEC/VI (compared to BUD/FOR) can be made cost-effective under the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold (¥38,000). Furthermore, the likelihood of cost-effectiveness increases with a higher WTP. Conclusions: Compared with the double combination (BUD/FOR), the triple combination (FF/UMEC/VI) is more cost-effective under the Chinese per capita GDP threshold.

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.