Cost Effectiveness of Subcutaneous Vedolizumab for Maintenance Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis in Canada.
Journal
PharmacoEconomics - open
ISSN: 2509-4254
Titre abrégé: Pharmacoecon Open
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101700780
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2022
Jul 2022
Historique:
accepted:
10
03
2022
pubmed:
28
4
2022
medline:
28
4
2022
entrez:
27
4
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Ulcerative 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. A 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. In 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). Conventional 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
Ulcerative 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.
METHODS
METHODS
A 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.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In 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).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Conventional 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35474178
doi: 10.1007/s41669-022-00331-9
pii: 10.1007/s41669-022-00331-9
pmc: PMC9283596
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
519-537Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Am J Gastroenterol. 2012 Aug;107(8):1228-35
pubmed: 22613902
N Engl J Med. 2013 Aug 22;369(8):699-710
pubmed: 23964932
Med Decis Making. 2006 Jul-Aug;26(4):410-20
pubmed: 16855129
Eur J Health Econ. 2018 Mar;19(2):229-240
pubmed: 28271250
Gastroenterology. 2020 Feb;158(3):562-572.e12
pubmed: 31470005
J Can Assoc Gastroenterol. 2019 Feb;2(Suppl 1):S6-S16
pubmed: 31294381
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2019 Oct;17(5):723-732
pubmed: 31250218
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2018 Jun;18(3):321-329
pubmed: 29192530
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2008 Nov 15;28(10):1230-9
pubmed: 18729845
Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2017 Oct 16;9:641-652
pubmed: 29081667
Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Sep;71(9):1450-1459
pubmed: 31385441
Value Health. 2011 Jun;14(4):417-28
pubmed: 21669366
Health Technol Assess. 2016 May;20(39):1-326
pubmed: 27220829
Gastroenterology. 2015 May;148(5):1035-1058.e3
pubmed: 25747596
J Crohns Colitis. 2017 Jul 1;11(7):769-784
pubmed: 28513805
N Engl J Med. 2011 Nov 3;365(18):1713-25
pubmed: 22047562
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Feb;15(2):229-239.e5
pubmed: 27639327
Health Econ. 2010 Oct;19(10):1117-27
pubmed: 20575151
J Can Assoc Gastroenterol. 2019 Feb;2(Suppl 1):S1-S5
pubmed: 31294380
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Mar;16(3):343-356.e3
pubmed: 28625817
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2010 Apr;31(7):693-707
pubmed: 20064142
Pharmacoeconomics. 2016 Mar;34(3):245-57
pubmed: 26477040
Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Jun;15(6):711-722
pubmed: 33599181
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Jan;5(1):17-30
pubmed: 31648971