scholarly journals PGI9 Cost-Effectiveness Comparison of Vedolizumab, Infliximab and Conventional Therapy for the Treatment of Biologic-Naïve, Moderately to Severely ACTIVE Ulcerative Colitis Patients in China

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. S534
Author(s):  
Y. Sheng ◽  
L. Ma ◽  
J. Chen ◽  
L. Xie ◽  
W. Zhao ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. e000302 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Lohan ◽  
Alex Diamantopoulos ◽  
Corinne LeReun ◽  
Emily Wright ◽  
Natalie Bohm ◽  
...  

Background and aimsIn the UK, treatments for patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis who have an inadequate response to conventional therapies comprise four biological therapies—the tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) agents adalimumab, golimumab and infliximab and the anti-integrin vedolizumab—and an orally administered small molecule therapy, tofacitinib. However, there have been few head-to-head studies of these therapies. This study aimed to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of tofacitinib with biological therapies.MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted to identify all relevant randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence. Clinical response, clinical remission and serious infection rates were synthesised using network meta-analysis (NMA). The results were used to compare the cost-effectiveness of tofacitinib and biologics with conventional therapy, using a Markov model, which incorporated lifetime costs and consequences of treatment from a UK National Health Service perspective. Analyses were conducted separately for TNFi-naïve and TNFi-exposed populations.ResultsSeventeen RCTs were used in the NMAs. There were no statistically significant differences among biological therapies and tofacitinib for either TNFi-naïve or TNFi-exposed patients. In TNFi-naïve patients, all therapies were more efficacious than placebo. In TNFi-exposed patients, only tofacitinib was significantly more efficacious than placebo as induction therapy, and only tofacitinib and vedolizumab were significantly more efficacious than placebo as maintenance therapies. There were no significant differences in serious infection rates among therapies. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for tofacitinib versus conventional therapy were £21 338 and £22 816 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in the TNFi-naïve and TNFi-exposed populations, respectively. TNFi therapies were dominated or extendedly dominated in both populations. Compared with vedolizumab, tofacitinib was associated with a similar number of QALYs, at a lower cost.ConclusionTofacitinib is an efficacious treatment for moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis and is likely to be a cost-effective use of NHS resources.


2013 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. A213-A214 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Goszczyńska ◽  
W. Wrona ◽  
M. Niewada ◽  
C.M. Black ◽  
T. Fan ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S454-S455
Author(s):  
I Diakite ◽  
B Schultz ◽  
J Carter ◽  
S Snedecor ◽  
R Turpin

Abstract Background Intravenous vedolizumab (VDZ IV) is approved for the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC). Subcutaneous VDZ (VDZ SC) was studied in the VISIBLE 1 trial (NCT02611830) and is under review by the US Food and Drug Administration for maintenance treatment. VARSITY (NCT02497469) is the first head-to-head trial to compare 2 biologics (VDZ IV vs. adalimumab SC [ADA]) in UC. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of VDZ SC vs. ADA from a US payor perspective using efficacy data from these trials. Methods We used a cohort decision tree model with a time horizon up to 2 years. Simulated cohorts included patients with and without prior biologic therapy who initiated treatment with VDZ IV (300 mg in weeks 0, 2, and 6) or ADA (day 1: 160 mg; day 15: 80 mg) for a 6 week induction period. Initial responders went on to maintenance treatment with VDZ SC (108 mg every 2 weeks) or ADA (40 mg every 2 weeks); maintenance remitters continued treatment for 2 years. Patients with inadequate response to induction, or serious adverse drug reaction (ADR) switched to treatment with biologics (tofacitinib, infliximab, or golimumab). Patients who were intolerant to biologics received corticosteroids with or without curative surgery. The relative effectiveness of VDZ IV vs. ADA was derived from network meta-analyses of published randomised controlled trials. Model outcomes included total direct medical costs associated with drug acquisition, administration, routine monitoring, toxicity management, ADRs, and cost per remission achieved. Costs (eg, drug, monitoring, healthcare resource utilisation, administration) are expressed in 2019 US$. Results Based on our model, VDZ SC was associated with greater clinical response (52.92% vs. 45.07%) and remission at year 2 (22.49% vs. 14.36%) compared with ADA. Total direct medical costs per patient over 2 years were $98,034 for VDZ SC and $137,007 for ADA. After 2 years of treatment, more patients were in remission with VDZ SC than ADA for lower overall costs. Conclusion The clinical foundation for this model is built primarily on evidence from clinical trials of adults with moderately to severely active UC. This allowed us to extrapolate clinical outcomes out to 2 years and estimate direct medical costs over that time. These modelled outcomes indicated that treatment with VDZ IV followed by VDZ SC is more effective and less costly for remission compared with initiation with ADA.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document