A review of the cost-effectiveness of vedolizumab for treating moderate- to severely active ulcerative colitis

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 679-683
Author(s):  
Her Hsin Tsai ◽  
Christopher Black
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 ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Remi Mahmoud ◽  
Chris van Lieshout ◽  
Geert W J Frederix ◽  
Bindia Jharap ◽  
Bas Oldenburg

Abstract Background and Aims Anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha [anti-TNF] treatment accounts for 31% of health care expenditures associated with ulcerative colitis [UC]. Withdrawal of anti-TNF in patients with UC in remission may decrease side effects and infections, while promoting cost containment. Approximately 36% of patients relapse within 12–24 months of anti-TNF withdrawal, but reintroduction of treatment is successful in 80% of patients. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of continuation versus withdrawal of anti-TNF in patients with UC in remission. Methods We developed a Markov model comparing cost-effectiveness of anti-TNF continuation versus withdrawal, from a health care provider perspective. Transition probabilities were calculated from literature, or estimated by an expert panel of 11 gastroenterologists. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to account for assumptions and uncertainty. The cost-effectiveness threshold was set at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €80,000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]. Results At 5 years, anti-TNF withdrawal was less costly [-€10,781 per patient], but also slightly less effective [-0.04 QALY per patient] than continued treatment. Continuation of anti-TNF compared with withdrawal costs €300,390/QALY, exceeding the cost-effectiveness threshold. Continued therapy would become cost-effective if the relapse rate following anti-TNF withdrawal was ≥43% higher, or if adalimumab or infliximab [biosimilar] prices fell below €87/40 mg and €66/100 mg, respectively. Conclusions Continuation of anti-TNF in UC patients in remission is not cost-effective compared with withdrawal. A stop-and-reintroduction strategy is cost-saving but is slightly less effective than continued therapy. This strategy could be improved by identifying patients at increased risk of relapse.


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