Systematic Review of The Cost-Effectiveness of Medicines For The Treatment of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis

Abstract

A555were elicited from an expert panel of 6 hematologists with the Delphi technique. Unit costs were taken from officially published Greek sources (Ministry of Health, Social Insurance Funds). Utility data were taken from a published UK study. Only direct costs were considered in the analysis and the cost base year was 2016. The time horizon was lifetime and the perspective adopted was the societal. Future costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed to test robustness of model results. Results: GClb was associated with higher mean costs (€ 24,874) but also with higher life years gained (LYs -5.70) and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) 3.95 versus all comparators. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of GClb versus RClb was estimated at € 15,679 per LY and € 16,614 per QALY gained. The respective ICERs versus Clb, OClb and RBenda were estimated at

Cost-effectiveness of the anti-fibrotics for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in the United States

“…Though the results from prior European cost-effectiveness analyses of the anti-fibrotics are not directly applicable to the United States given the heterogeneity of the various health care systems as well as the large difference in the price of the medications (around $30,000 USD on average in Europe versus more than $110,000 in the US), these European studies also observed that the anti-fibrotic medications are not cost-effective, even with lower list prices [ 12 , 14 , 29 ]. One systematic review found that, of the ten studies published in Europe, none considered the anti-fibrotics to have an acceptable ICER, though the magnitude of the ICER was far higher in our study [ 33 ]. This evaluation also discovered that, in the majority of cases, nintedanib was the more cost-effective agent than pirfenidone.…”