Cost effectiveness of etoricoxib versus celecoxib and non-selective NSAIDS in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis.

To evaluate the cost effectiveness of etoricoxib (90 mg/day) relative to celecoxib (200 or 400 mg/day), and the non-selective NSAIDs naproxen (1000 mg/day) and diclofenac (150 mg/day) in the initial treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) from the UK NHS perspective. A Bayesian cost-effectiveness model was developed to estimate the costs and benefits associated with initiating AS treatment with etoricoxib, celecoxib, diclofenac or naproxen. Efficacy, safety and medical resource and cost data were obtained from the literature. The obtained efficacy estimates were synthesized with a mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Treatment benefit and degree of disease activity, as reflected with Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) scores, were related to QALYs and AS-specific costs (related to BASDAI). Other cost outcomes related to drug acquisition, and gastrointestinal and cardiovascular safety. Uncertainty in the source data was translated into uncertainty in cost-effectiveness estimates and therefore decision uncertainty. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5% per annum. There was a >98% probability that treatment with etoricoxib results in greater QALYs than the other interventions. Over a 30-year time horizon, starting AS treatment with etoricoxib was associated with about 0.4 more QALYs than the other interventions. At 2 years there was a 77% probability that etoricoxib had the lowest cost. This increased to >99% at 30 years. Etoricoxib is expected to save 13 620 UK pounds (year 2007 values) relative to celecoxib (200/400 mg), 9957 UK pounds relative to diclofenac and 9863 UK pounds relative to naproxen. For a willingness-to-pay ceiling ratio of 20 000 UK pounds per QALY, there was a >97% probability that etoricoxib was the most cost-effective treatment. Additional analysis with different assumptions, including celecoxib 200 mg, and ignoring cost-offsets associated with improvements in disease activity, supported these findings. This economic evaluation suggests that, from the UK NHS perspective, etoricoxib is the most cost-effective initial NSAID treatment for AS patients.

Economic evaluation of etoricoxib versus non-selective NSAIDs in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis in the UK.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of etoricoxib, a cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 selective inhibitor, versus non-selective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (nsNSAIDs) in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS). METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of etoricoxib versus nsNSAIDs was evaluated from the UK National Health Service (NHS) and society perspective with a decision-analytic model. Patients stayed on initial therapy throughout 52 weeks unless they experienced an adverse event (AE) or lacked efficacy, in which case they switched to another nsNSAID or a tumor necrosis factor alpha antagonist. Efficacy data were obtained from a 1-year etoricoxib clinical trial in AS. Bath AS Functional Index (BASFI) data were translated into Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) weights using a published data on the relation between BASFI and Short-form (SF) 36 Quality of life scores, as well as the relation between SF-36 and utility. Safety data were based on meta-analyses of etoricoxib trials. Information on treatment pathways, resource consumption, and absenteeism from work was obtained from literature and experts. Model outcomes included QALYs, perforations, ulcers, or bleeds, cardiovascular events, and costs. RESULTS: Etoricoxib was cost-effective compared to nsNSAIDs in terms of cost per QALY saved ( pound5611). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis found a 77% probability of the incremental cost per QALY saved being within a threshold for cost-effectiveness of pound20 000. The expected direct costs over the 52-week period were pound1.23 (95% uncertainty distribution pound1.10; pound1.39) and pound1.13 per day ( pound0.78; pound1.55) for patients starting with etoricoxib and nsNSAIDs, respectively. When costs related to absenteeism were taken into account, the cost per QALY saved was pound281. CONCLUSIONS: Given the underlying assumptions and data used, this economic evaluation demonstrated that, compared to nsNSAIDs, etoricoxib is a cost-effective therapy for AS patients in the UK.

Defective Fc-dependent processing of immune complexes in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the Fc receptor-dependent handling of immune complexes (ICs) by the fixed mononuclear phagocytic systems (MPS) in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). METHODS: The processing in vivo of soluble model (123)I-hepatitis B/ anti-hepatitis B ICs was studied in 12 healthy subjects and 10 patients with active SLE. ICs that fixed complement poorly were prepared specifically in order to explore Fc receptor-dependent clearance mechanisms. Clearance kinetics and organ uptake were assessed by computer-aided gamma scintigraphy and serial blood sampling. RESULTS: In both patients and controls, the main site of IC clearance was the liver; only 2-6% of injected ICs were taken up in the spleen. The kinetics of initial IC clearance were similar in both groups, but defective hepatic retention of ICs was demonstrated in patients with SLE. At 1 hour, hepatic activity in patients had fallen to 56% of maximum, compared with 74% in controls (P = 0.0002). Precipitation studies performed on serum samples using staphylococcal protein A-Sepharose indicated that antibody-complexed tracer was released from the liver 20-50 minutes after injection. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that Fc-mediated clearance of ICs is defective in patients with SLE and suggest that ligation of ICs by Fc receptors is critical for their efficient binding and retention by the fixed MPS in the liver.