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

Abstract

BackgroundUlcerative 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.ObjectiveOur 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsOf 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. Th...

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

“…The ERG suggested that this issue could have been addressed by modeling the maintenance phase transitions between moderate-to-severe UC, response, and remission health states, using the patient-level data from the GEMINI I clinical trial [15,61]. We followed the ERG's recommendation, and the model structure is in line with previous models [62]. However, unlike in previous studies, we did not have access to the individual patient data from any RCT of the comparators included in this analysis to derive transition probabilities between the maintenance phase health states.…”

Systems pharmacology approach reveals the antiinflammatory effects of Ampelopsis grossedentata on dextran sodium sulfate-induced colitis

“…In addition to dietary control, the available pharmacologic treatments include 5-aminosalicylates, steroids, thiopurines and biological agents[ 6 ]. However, the routine medical treatments for UC are not fully curative, and investigations have shown that compared with standard care, the elevated cost-utility ratios of biologics reached up to $456979 (in United States’ dollars)[ 7 ]. In addition, as UC mostly affects young people and takes a lifelong treatment, as well as has a low mortality[ 8 , 9 ] that is not different from that in the healthy population, the disease poses an enormous economic burden on individuals, families and society.…”

Is the universal population Hepatitis C virus screening a cost-effective strategy? A systematic review of the economic evidence

“…Each year 1-3% of persons with cirrhosis progress to hepatocellular carcinoma [1]. Not only liver diseases cause an extensive clinical morbidity and large economic costs, in addition, also some extrahepatic diseases, like Diabetes Mellitus, cryoglobulinemia, renal diseases, depression or chronic fatigue, also would limit the quality of life, work productivity and increases morbidity [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10].…”