scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of intravenous vedolizumab vs subcutaneous adalimumab for moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (11) ◽  
pp. 1592-1600
Author(s):  
Bob G Schultz ◽  
Ibrahim Diakite ◽  
John A Carter ◽  
Sonya J Snedecor ◽  
Robin Turpin
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.


2010 ◽  
Vol 14 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 9-15
Author(s):  
S Bryan ◽  
L Andronis ◽  
C Hyde ◽  
M Connock ◽  
A Fry-Smith ◽  
...  

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of infliximab for the treatment of acute exacerbations of ulcerative colitis, in accordance with the licensed indication, based upon the manufacturer’s submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal process. The submitted clinical evidence included four randomised controlled trials (RCTs), two comparing infliximab with placebo in patients not responsive to initial treatment with intravenous corticosteroids and one comparing ciclosporin with placebo. A fourth RCT compared ciclosporin with intravenous corticosteroids as the initial treatment after hospitalisation. The manufacturer’s submission concluded that infliximab provides clinical benefit to patients with acute severe, steroid-refractory ulcerative colitis and is well tolerated; it also provides additional clinical benefits over ciclosporin, particularly avoidance of colectomy. A decision tree model was built to compare infliximab with strategies involving ciclosporin, standard care and surgery. After correcting a small number of errors in the model, the revised base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for infliximab compared with standard care was £20,000. However, sensitivity analyses revealed considerable uncertainty emanating from the weight of the patient, the timeframe considered and, most importantly, the colectomy rates used. When a more appropriate mix of trials were included in the estimation of colectomy rates, the ICER for infliximab rose to £48,000. The guidance issued by NICE on 31 October 2008 states that infliximab is recommended as an option for the treatment of acute exacerbations of severely active ulcerative colitis only in patients in whom ciclosporin is contraindicated or clinically inappropriate, based on a careful assessment of the risks and benefits of treatment in the individual patient; for people who do not meet this criterion, infliximab should only be used for the treatment of acute exacerbations of severely active ulcerative colitis in clinical trials.


2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S508-S508
Author(s):  
R Schultz ◽  
I Diakite ◽  
J Carter ◽  
S Snedecor ◽  
R Turpin

Abstract Background VARSITY (NCT02497469) is the first head-to-head trial comparing two biologic therapies, intravenous vedolizumab (VDZ IV) and subcutaneous adalimumab (ADA), in adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of VDZ IV vs. ADA from a US payor perspective using efficacy data from VARSITY. Methods We used a cohort decision tree model with a time horizon up to 2 years. Simulated cohorts included patients with or 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 proceeded to maintenance treatment with VDZ IV (300 mg every 8 weeks) or ADA (40 mg every 2 weeks); maintenance phase remitters continued treatment for 2 years. Patients with inadequate response to induction or a 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) were expressed in 2019 US$. Results Based on our model, VDZ IV was associated with greater induction response (52.92% vs. 45.07%) and remission 2 (21.95% vs. 14.36%) rates at year 2 compared with ADA. Total direct medical costs were $90,673 for VDZ IV and $137,007 for ADA. After 2 years of treatment, more patients in the VDZ IV cohort were in remission and for lower costs compared with ADA. Conclusion The clinical foundation of this model is predicated primarily on head-to-head evidence from the Phase 3 VARSITY trial. This allowed us to extrapolate clinical outcomes out to 2 years and estimate direct medical costs over that timeframe. These modelled outcomes indicate that over a 2-year time horizon adults with moderately to severely active UC are expected to achieve better clinical outcomes and incur lower direct medical costs vs. ADA.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document