Cost-Effectiveness of 5-Aminosalicylate Therapy in Combination With Biologics or Tofacitinib in the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis.

INTRODUCTION: Medications are major cost drivers in the treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Recent analyses suggest that there is no added efficacy in continuing nor harm in stopping 5-aminosalicylate (ASA) therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease escalated to biological therapies or tofacitinib. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of discontinuing 5-ASA therapy in patients with ulcerative colitis on biological therapies or tofacitinib, compared with continuing 5-ASA therapy. METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of 5-ASA with biologic therapy and tofacitinib compared with the same treatment without 5-ASA. Our primary outcome was to determine whether biologic/tofacitinib monotherapy was cost-effective compared with biologic/tofacitinib and 5-ASA combination therapy using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at a willingness to pay of $50,000/quality-adjusted life year. Owing to the uncertainty surrounding outcome probabilities, probabilistic sensitivity analyses with 10,000 simulations were also performed. We conducted a sensitivity analysis comparing biologic/tofacitinib and 5-ASA therapy compared with biologic/tofacitinib monotherapy, whereby vedolizumab was the first biologic used, followed by infliximab and finally tofacitinib. RESULTS: Our model shows that biologic/tofacitinib monotherapy dominates (cheaper and more effective) combination therapy of biologics/tofacitinib with 5-ASA. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses simulations resulted in biologic/tofacitinib monotherapy dominating 100% of the scenarios, with mean cost savings of $24,483.01 over 2 years. When vedolizumab was the first-line therapy in the sensitivity analysis, biologic/tofacitinib monotherapy continued to dominate the combination of 5-ASA and biologic/tofacitinib therapy. DISCUSSION: This analysis in patients with ulcerative colitis who require treatment with biologics or tofacitinib demonstrates that continuing 5-ASA therapy is not a cost-effective strategy. Discontinuation of 5-ASA therapy in these patients is safe and less expensive and should be recommended.

Economic Evaluations of Treatments for Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Literature Review.

Objective: The objective of this literature review was to evaluate the existing evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of treatment options in IBD. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify economic evaluations of IBD therapy. The literature search was performed using electronic databases MEDLINE and EMBASE. Searches were limited to full economic evaluations published in English or French between 2004 and 2016. Results: A total of 5,403 potentially relevant studies were identified. After screening titles and abstracts, 48 studies were included, according to the eligibility criteria. A total of 56% and 42% of the studies were assessing treatments of UC or CD, respectively. Treatment options under evaluation included biological agents, mesalamine, immunosuppressants, and surgery. The majority of studies evaluated the cost-effectiveness of biological treatments. Biological therapies were dominant in 23% of the analyses and were cost-effective according to a $CAD50,000/QALY and $CAD100,000/QALY threshold in 41% and 62% of the analyses, respectively. Conclusion: This literature review provided a comprehensive overview of the economic evaluations for the different treatment options for IBD over the past 12 years and represents a helpful reference for future economic evaluations.

Physicians' Perspectives on Cost, Safety, and Perceived Efficacy Determine Aminosalicylate Use in Crohn's Disease.

BACKGROUND: Aminosalicylates are the most commonly prescribed therapy in Crohn's disease (CD), despite uncertainty in the evidence to support their efficacy. AIMS: To examine physicians' perspectives on aminosalicylate use for CD and explore the discordance between clinical practice and the evidence base. METHODS: A qualitative interview study was performed amongst physicians with at least 4 years of independent experience in managing CD patients. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted using an exploratory interview guide. Interview transcripts were thematically analyzed to elucidate concepts pertaining to treatment strategies for CD, motivations for prescribing aminosalicylates, perceived benefits and harms of aminosalicylate use, and the relationship between the evidence and real-world prescribing practices. RESULTS: A representative sample of thirty physicians from four different countries and multiple practice environments (university/teaching hospitals, public practice, private/community practice, and subspecialty gastroenterology clinics) participated. Nearly all physicians (93.3%, 28/30) reported prescribing aminosalicylates for CD. Aminosalicylates were endorsed as first-line therapy for mild CD by nearly half of participants (13/30, 43.3%). A favorable safety profile, possible efficacy in mild colonic CD, and patient reluctance to step-up to other therapies were primary motivators for aminosalicylate use. Almost half of respondents (46.7%) expressed that the evidence informing aminosalicylate efficacy in CD differed substantially from their own clinical experience. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians' beliefs about efficacy in subgroups of CD patients, safety, and patient preferences primarily motivate aminosalicylate prescription in CD. There is a lack of confidence in published clinical trials, and a desire for more robust evidence to inform 5-ASA use in CD.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: prevalence, risk factors and costs of aminosalicylate use in Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Aminosalicylates are the most frequently prescribed drugs for patients with Crohn's disease (CD), yet evidence to support their efficacy as induction or maintenance therapy is controversial. AIMS: To quantify aminosalicylate use in CD clinical trials, identify factors associated with use and estimate direct annual treatment costs of therapy. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL were searched to April 2017 for placebo-controlled trials in adults with CD treated with corticosteroids, immunosuppressants or biologics. The proportion of patients co-prescribed aminosalicylates in placebo arms was pooled using a random-effects model. Meta-regression was used to identify factors associated with aminosalicylate use. Annual treatment costs were estimated using the 2016 Ontario Drug Benefit Program. RESULTS: Forty-two induction and 10 maintenance trials were included. The pooled proportion of patients co-prescribed aminosalicylates was 44% [95% CI: 39%-49%] in induction trials and 49% [95% CI: 35%-64%] in maintenance trials. There was substantial to considerable heterogeneity (I2  = 86.0%, 91.8% for induction and maintenance trials, respectively). In multivariable meta-regression, aminosalicylate use has decreased over time in induction trials (OR 0.50 [95% CI: 0.34-0.74] per 10-year increment). While a decline has been seen over time, 35% of CD patients were still using aminosalicylates in contemporary trials from the last 5 years. The estimated annual cost for the lowest price mesalazine (mesalamine) formulation is approximately $32 million for the Canadian CD population. CONCLUSIONS: Over one-third of CD patients entering clinical trials are still co-prescribed aminosalicylates. A definitive trial is needed to inform the conventional practice of using aminosalicylates as CD maintenance therapy.

Direct health-care cost utilization in Hong Kong inflammatory bowel disease patients in the initial 2 years following diagnosis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: There are scanty data on the health-care utilization from Asia where the incidence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is rising rapidly. We aim to determine the direct health-care costs in the first 2 years of diagnosis in an IBD cohort from Hong Kong and the factors associated with high cost outliers. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study that included patients newly diagnosed with IBD in a territory-wide IBD registry. Patients' clinical information, hospitalization records, investigations, and IBD treatments were retrieved for up to 2 years following diagnosis of IBD. RESULTS: Four hundred and thirty-five newly diagnosed IBD patients were included: 198 with Crohn's disease and 237 with ulcerative colitis. Total direct medical expenditure for this cohort 2 years after the IBD diagnosis was $7 072 710: hospitalizations (33%), 5-aminosalicylic acid (23%), imaging and endoscopy (17%), outpatient visits (10%), surgery (8%), and biologics (6%). Mean direct medical costs per patient-year were significantly higher for Crohn's disease ($9918) than ulcerative colitis ($6634; P, 0.001). The total direct health-care cost decreased significantly after transition to the second year (P < 0.01). High cost (> 90th percentile) outliers were associated with surgery (OR 7.1, 95% CI 2.9-17.2) and low hemoglobin on presentation (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70-0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalization and 5-aminosalicylic acid usage accounted for 56% of total direct medical costs in the first 2 years of our newly diagnosed IBD patients. Direct health-care costs were higher in the first year compared with the second year of diagnosis. Surgery and low hemoglobin on presentation were associated with high cost outliers.

Market share and costs of biologic therapies for inflammatory bowel disease in the USA.

BACKGROUND: Real-world data quantifying the costs of increasing use of biologics in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are unknown. AIM: To determine the outpatient IBD drug utilization trends, relative market share, and costs in the USA during a 9-year period. METHODS: The Truven MarketScan® Database was analysed for patients with Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) during 2007-2015. National drug codes were used to identify prescription drugs; Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System J-codes were used to capture biologic out-patient infusions. Proportion of drug usage, relative market share and per-member per-year (PMPY) costs were analysed for biologics, immunomodulators, 5-ASAs and corticosteroids. RESULTS: In 415 405 patients (188 842 CD; 195 183 UC; 31 380 indeterminate colitis; 54.67% female), utilization trends show a consistent rise in the market share of biologics during the 9-year study period. The proportion of patients using biologics increased from 21.8% to 43.8% for CD and 5.1%-16.2% for UC. This contrasts a small decrease in immunomodulator and 5-ASA use for CD and relative constancy of other classes including corticosteroids-only use as primary IBD medication from 2007 to 2015. The average biologic-taking patient accounted for $25 275 PMPY in 2007 and $36 051 PMPY in 2015. The average paediatric biologic-taking patient accounted for $23 616 PMPY in 2007 and $41 109 PMPY in 2015. In all patients, the share of costs for biologics increased from 72.9% in 2007 to 85.7% in 2015 (81.7% in 2007 to 94.9% in 2015 in paediatrics). CONCLUSION: The vast majority of costs allocated to out-patient IBD medications in the USA is attributed to increasing use of biologic therapies despite the relative minority of biologic-taking patients.

Oral 5-Aminosalicylate, Mesalamine Suppository, and Mesalamine Enema as Initial Therapy for Ulcerative Proctitis in Clinical Practice with Quality of Care Implications.

Background. Ulcerative proctitis (UP) is typically treated initially with oral 5-aminosalicylate ("5-ASA"), mesalamine suppository, or mesalamine enema ("UP Rx"). Little is known about their effectiveness in practice. Methods. Using a US health insurance database, we identified new-onset UP patients between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2007, based on the following: (1) initiation of UP Rx; (2) endoscopy in prior 30 days resulting in diagnosis of UP; and (3) no prior encounters for ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease. We examined the incidence of therapy escalation and total costs in relation to initial UP Rx. Results. We identified 548 patients: 327 received mesalamine suppository, 138 received oral 5-ASA, and 83 received mesalamine enema, as initial UP Rx. One-third receiving oral 5-ASA experienced therapy escalation over 12 months, 21% for both mesalamine suppository and enema. Mean cumulative total cost of UP Rx over 12 months was $1552, $996, and $986 for patients beginning therapy with oral 5-ASA, mesalamine enema, and mesalamine suppository, respectively. Contrary to expert recommendations the treatments were often not continued prophylactically. Conclusions. Treatment escalation was common, and total costs of therapy were higher, in patients who initiated treatment with oral 5-ASA. Further study is necessary to assess the significance of these observations.

[Cost-effectiveness assessment through theoretical cost-minimization analysis of the use of two gastro-resistant modified-release mesalazine formulations in the management of ulcerative colitis in Spain]. / Evaluación de coste-efectividad mediante análisis teórico de minimización de costes del uso de dos mesalazinas gastrorresistentes de liberación prolongada en el manejo de la colitis ulcerosa en España.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of ulcerative colitis (UC) and its associated economic burden is increasing in Spain. Oral mesalazines, which are the recommended first-line treatment for mild-moderate UC, show considerable variability in their formulations and prices. OBJECTIVE: To carry out a cost-effectiveness assessment of the use of the two formulations of oral gastro-resistant modified-release mesalazine formulations marketed in Spain (Salofalk(®) and Mezavant(®)) for the phases of induction of remission and its maintenance. METHODS: We adapted internationally validated economic models for the management of UC to the Spanish setting. The adaptation focused on the use of oral gastro-resistant modified-release mesalazines. We conducted cost minimization analyses of remission induction (decision tree) and remission maintenance (Markov model). RESULTS: For the remission induction, Salofalk(®) 3 g/day was superior to (same effectiveness at lower costs) Mezavant(®) 3.6 g/day and 4.8 g/day in any treatment strategy that included oral gastro-resistant modified-release mesalazines. When compared with Mezavant(®) 2.4 g/day, Salofalk(®) was the most cost-effective option. For remission maintenance, all treatment strategies using Salofalk(®) were the most cost-effective option in all the scenarios considered. CONCLUSION: Because of the lower cost per gram of Salofalk(®), any treatment strategy based on this drug is more cost-effective than Mezavant(®) for the treatment of mild-moderate UC, whether for the induction of remission or for its maintenance.

Real-world assessment of therapy changes, suboptimal treatment and associated costs in patients with ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Treatments for Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) are not uniformly effective, thus necessitating dose changes, switching, and augmentation and carry adverse event risk, often requiring discontinuation, which reduces treatment benefits. AIM: To assess continuity of and changes to initial CD and UC treatments, as well as costs associated with specific parameters defining suboptimal therapy. METHODS: Commercial US insurance claims (2006-2010) were retrospectively analysed. CD and UC patients receiving monotherapy with 5-aminosalicylates (5-ASAs), corticosteroids (CS), immunomodulators (IM) or biologics were included. Continuity of and changes to initial (index) therapy and associated costs (2011 US$) were assessed over 12 months following therapy initiation. Suboptimal therapy included discontinuation or switch (except for CS), dose escalation, augmentation, inadequate loading (biologics only), prolonged CS use (>3 months), surgery or hospitalisation. RESULTS: The study included 13,005 CD and 19,878 UC patients. Augmentation was a common index therapy change (~20% of 5-ASA initiators, ~40% of CS initiators, ≥40% of IM initiators and 26-55% of biologic initiators) in both CD and UC patients. Approximately 50% of CD and UC 5-ASA initiators discontinued/interrupted treatment. Approximately 80% of CD and UC patients had ≥1 suboptimal therapy marker. Mean all-cause total costs per CD patient were significantly higher in those with vs. without suboptimal therapy ($18,736 vs. $10,878; P < 0.001); in UC, the disparity was smaller ($12,679 vs. $9653; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Frequent dose and treatment changes were observed in all classes of initial UC and CD treatments. The economic impact of suboptimal therapy among UC and CD patients is substantial.

Cost and quality-adjusted life year differences in the treatment of active ulcerative colitis using once-daily 4 g or twice-daily 2g mesalazine dosing.

BACKGROUND: Improved compliance in active ulcerative colitis (UC) is likely to improve healthcare efficiency by reducing time spent in active mild to moderate UC state. To establish whether once daily (OD) mesalazine offers economic advantages over twice daily (BD) dosing in active UC, we evaluated the outcomes and costs of a recently published randomized study. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model with four week Markov cycles was developed to reflect current treatment practices in the Netherlands with OD and BD mesalazine for active UC. The health service perspective of the Netherlands was reflected in the model and considered a 32week time horizon with 4 weekly Markov cycles. Outcomes evaluated in the model were time spent in active and remission UC and the corresponding health-related quality of life associated with different clinical states. This was then used to derive quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) at each treatment stage. RESULTS: A greater proportion of subjects on 4 g OD achieved remission at weeks 4 and 8 compared with 2g BD. After 32 weeks the average costs per patient with active UC were €3097 and €3548 for those treated with OD and BD mesalazine respectively, with an average saving of €451 per patient treated with OD mesalazine. The average costs per QALY for OD and BD mesalazine were €5433 and €6324 for OD and BD, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results from a single randomized study, OD dosing resulted in a shorter time spent in active UC which resulted in lower healthcare costs.

Decision tree cnnstruction and cost-effectivenes analysis of treatment of ulceerative colitis with pentasa® mesalazine 2 g sachet / Construcao de arvore de decisao e analise de custo-efetividade do tratamento da retocolite ulcerativa com Pentasa (mesalazina) 2 g sache

Context Unspecified Ulcerative Rectocolitis is a chronic disease that affects between 0.5 and 24.5/105 inhabitants in the world. National and international clinical guidelines recommend the use of aminosalicylates (including mesalazine) as first-line therapy for induction of remission of unspecified ulcerative rectocolitis, and recommend the maintenance of these agents after remission is achieved. However, multiple daily doses required for the maintenance of disease remission compromise compliance with treatment, which is very low (between 45% and 65%). Use of mesalazina in granules (2 g sachet) once daily - Pentasa® sachets 2 g - can enhance treatment adherence, reflecting in an improvement in patients' outcomes. Objective To evaluate the evidence on the use of mesalazine for the maintenance of remission in patients with unspecified ulcerative rectocolitis and its effectiveness when taken once versus more than once a day. From an economic standpoint, to analyze the impact of the adoption of this dosage in Brazil's public health system, considering patients' adherence to treatment. Methods A decision tree was developed based on the Clinical Protocol and Therapeutic Guidelines for Ulcerative Colitis, published by the Ministry of Health in the lobby SAS/MS n° 861 of November 4 th, 2002 and on the algorithms published by the Associação Brasileira de Colite Ulcerativa e Doença de Crohn, aiming to get the cost-effectiveness of mesalazine once daily in granules compared with mesalazine twice daily in tablets. Results The use of mesalazine increases the chances of remission induction and maintenance when compared to placebo, and higher doses are associated with greater chance of success without increasing the risk of adverse events. Conclusion The use of a single daily dose in the maintenance of remission is effective and related to higher patient compliance when compared to the multiple daily dose regimens, ...

Contexto A retocolite ulcerativa inespecífica é uma doença crônica que atinge entre 0,5 e 24,5/105 habitantes no mundo. Diretrizes clínicas nacionais e internacionais recomendam o emprego de aminosalicilatos (entre eles, a mesalazina) como terapia de primeira linha na indução da remissão da retocolite ulcerativa inespecífica, com manutenção destes agentes após a remissão. Mas as múltiplas doses diárias necessárias comprometem a adesão ao tratamento, que é muito baixa (entre 45% e 65%). A utilização de mesalazina em grânulos (sachê 2 g) dose única diária - Pentasa® sachê 2 g - pode aumentar a aderência ao tratamento, refletindo numa melhora nos desfechos dos pacientes. Objetivo Avaliar as evidências sobre o uso de mesalazina para a manutenção da remissão em pacientes com retocolite ulcerativa inespecífica e sua eficácia quando tomada uma vez versus mais de uma vez ao dia. Do ponto de vista econômico, avaliar o impacto que a adoção desta posologia teria para o sistema público de saúde do país, comparada ao tratamento padrão atual, considerando a adesão dos pacientes. Métodos Foi elaborada uma árvore de decisão construída a partir do Protocolo Clínico e Diretrizes Terapêuticas de Colite Ulcerativa, publicado pelo Ministério da Saúde na portaria SAS/MS n° 861, de 04 de novembro de 2002, e de algoritmos publicados pela Associação Brasileira de Colite Ulcerativa e Doença de Crohn, objetivando-se obter o custo-efetividade da mesalazina dose única diária em grânulos comparado com mesalazina duas vezes ao dia em comprimidos. Resultados O emprego de mesalazina aumenta as chances de indução da remissão e sua manutenção, quando comparado a ...

Decision tree construction and cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment of ulcerative colitis with pentasa® mesalazine 2 g sachet.

CONTEXT: Unspecified Ulcerative Rectocolitis is a chronic disease that affects between 0.5 and 24.5/105 inhabitants in the world. National and international clinical guidelines recommend the use of aminosalicylates (including mesalazine) as first-line therapy for induction of remission of unspecified ulcerative rectocolitis, and recommend the maintenance of these agents after remission is achieved. However, multiple daily doses required for the maintenance of disease remission compromise compliance with treatment, which is very low (between 45% and 65%). Use of mesalazina in granules (2 g sachet) once daily--Pentasa® sachets 2 g--can enhance treatment adherence, reflecting in an improvement in patients' outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence on the use of mesalazine for the maintenance of remission in patients with unspecified ulcerative rectocolitis and its effectiveness when taken once versus more than once a day. From an economic standpoint, to analyze the impact of the adoption of this dosage in Brazil's public health system, considering patients' adherence to treatment. METHODS: A decision tree was developed based on the Clinical Protocol and Therapeutic Guidelines for Ulcerative Colitis, published by the Ministry of Health in the lobby SAS/MS n° 861 of November 4 th, 2002 and on the algorithms published by the Associação Brasileira de Colite Ulcerativa e Doença de Crohn, aiming to get the cost-effectiveness of mesalazine once daily in granules compared with mesalazine twice daily in tablets. RESULTS: The use of mesalazine increases the chances of remission induction and maintenance when compared to placebo, and higher doses are associated with greater chance of success without increasing the risk of adverse events. CONCLUSION: The use of a single daily dose in the maintenance of remission is effective and related to higher patient compliance when compared to the multiple daily dose regimens, with lower costs.

Cost utility of inflammation-targeted therapy for patients with ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Oral mesalamine drugs are frequently used to treat patients with mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis (UC). However, these drugs are costly, and long-term adherence is poor. We compared the cost utility of inflammation-targeted, intermittent therapy with that of universal, continuous maintenance therapy with mesalamine agents for patients with mild-to-moderate UC. METHODS: We developed a Markov cohort model that simulated a population of adult patients with newly diagnosed, quiescent UC after induction of remission with mesalamine agents. We obtained model inputs from the literature. The perspective taken was that of a short-term payer (health insurance provider) during a 5-year time period. We modeled 3 treatment strategies: symptom-targeted treatment (treatment for symptomatic disease flares only, SYMPT), continuous mesalamine maintenance for all patients (CONT, the current standard of care), and inflammation-targeted treatment (mesalamine therapy for only patients with a stool sample positive for an inflammatory marker, INFLAM). We measured disease flares, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs (2009 U.S. dollars), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: INFLAM was the least costly strategy (cumulative per-patient cost of $22,798), compared with $24,378 for the SYMPT and $25,621 for the CONT strategies. Despite the lower cost, INFLAM was comparable to SYMPT and CONT in effectiveness (4.4986 vs 4.5014 QALYs, respectively), making INFLAM the optimal strategy. Several variables were found to be important in sensitivity analysis; the CONT strategy was optimal only if the cost of mesalamine drugs was markedly reduced. CONCLUSIONS: Inflammation-targeted treatment of patients with UC is effective and costs less than continuous treatment of all patients with mesalamine, the current standard of care. Prospective trials of inflammation-targeted treatment are warranted.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of strategies to prevent postoperative clinical recurrence of Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: A number of treatments have been shown to reduce the risk of postoperative recurrence of Crohn's disease (CD). The optimal strategy is unknown. The aim was to evaluate the comparative cost-effectiveness of postoperative strategies to prevent clinical recurrence of CD. METHODS: Three prophylactic strategies were compared to "no prophylaxis"; mesalamine, azathioprine (AZA) / 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP), and infliximab. The probability of clinical recurrence, endoscopic recurrence, and therapy discontinuation due to adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were extracted from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Quality-of-life scores and treatment costs were derived from published data. The primary model evaluated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and cost-effectiveness at 1 year after surgery. Sensitivity analysis assessed the impact of a range of recurrence rates on cost-effectiveness. An exploratory analysis evaluated cost-effectiveness outcomes 5 years after surgery. RESULTS: A strategy of "no prophylaxis" was the least expensive one at 1 and 5 years after surgery. Compared to this approach, AZA/6-MP had the most favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) ($299,188/QALY gained), and yielded the highest net health benefits of the medication strategies at 1 year. Sensitivity analysis determined that the ICER of AZA/6-MP was preferable to mesalamine up to a recurrence rate of 52%, but mesalamine dominated at higher rates. In the 5-year exploratory analysis, mesalamine had the most favorable ICER over 5 years ($244,177/QALY gained). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to no prophylactic treatment, AZA/6-MP has the most favorable ICER in the prevention of clinical recurrence of postoperative CD up to 1 year. At 5 years, mesalamine had the most favorable ICER in this model.

Cost effectiveness of ulcerative colitis treatment in Germany: a comparison of two oral formulations of mesalazine.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC) can place a substantial financial burden on healthcare systems. The anti-inflammatory compound 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA; mesalazine) is the recommended first-line treatment for patients with UC. In this analysis, the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of two oral formulations of 5-ASA (Mezavant® and Asacol®) is examined in the treatment of patients with mild-to-moderate, active UC in Germany. METHODS: A Markov cohort model was developed to assess the cost effectiveness of Mezavant compared with Asacol over a 5-year period in the German Statutory Health Insurance (SHI). Drug pricing details for 2009 were applied throughout the model, and overall resource use was determined and also fitted to 2009 from published results of a large cross sectional study of German SHI patients. Cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) was the primary endpoint for this study. Remission rates were obtained using data from a randomised, phase III trial of Mezavant with an active Asacol reference arm and a long-term, open label, safety and tolerability trial of Mezavant. Uncertainty in the study model was assessed using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses applying a Monte Carlo simulation. RESULTS: Over a 5-year period, healthcare costs for patients receiving Mezavant were 624 Euro lower than for patients receiving Asacol. Additionally, patients receiving Mezavant gained 0.011 QALYs or 18 more days in remission compared with Asacol. One-way sensitivity analyses suggest that these results are driven by both differences in the acquisition cost between mesalazine formulations and differences in treatment efficacy. Furthermore, sensitivity analyses suggest a probability of 76% for cost savings and higher QALYs with Mezavant compared with Asacol. If adherence and its influence on the remission rates and the risk of developing colorectal cancer were included in the model, the results might have even been more favorable to Mezavant due to its once daily dosing regimen. CONCLUSIONS: This model suggests that patients treated with Mezavant may achieve increased time in remission and higher QALYs, with lower direct costs to the SHI when compared with Asacol. Mezavant may therefore be a suitable first-line option for the induction and maintenance of remission in UC.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of adjunct VSL#3 therapy versus standard medical therapy in pediatric ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) are costly chronic gastrointestinal diseases, with pediatric IBD representing increased costs per patient compared to adult disease. Health care expenditures for ulcerative colitis (UC) are >$2 billion annually. It is not clear whether the addition of VSL#3 to standard medical therapy in UC induction and maintenance of remission is a cost-effective strategy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the literature and created a Markov model simulating a cohort of 10-year-old patients with severe UC, studying them until 100 years of age or death. We compared 2 strategies: standard medical therapy versus medical therapy + VSL#3. For both strategies, we assumed that patients progressed through escalating therapies--mesalamine, azathioprine, and infliximab--before receiving a colectomy + ileal pouch anal anastamosis (IPAA) if the 3 medical therapy options were exhausted. The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as the difference of costs between strategies for each quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed on variables to determine the key variables affecting cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Standard medical care accrued a lifetime cost of $203,317 per patient, compared to $212,582 per patient for medical therapy + VSL#3. Lifetime QALYs gained was comparable for standard medical therapy and medical therapy + VSL#3 at 24.93 versus 25.05, respectively. Using the definition of ICER <50,000/QALY as a cost-effective intervention, medical therapy + VSL#3 produced an ICER of $79,910 per QALY gained, making this strategy cost-ineffective. Sensitivity analyses showed that 4 key parameters could affect the cost-effectiveness of the 2 strategies: cost of colectomy + IPAA, maintenance cost after surgery, probability of developing pouchitis after surgery, and the quality of life after a colectomy + IPAA. High surgical and postsurgical costs, a high probability of developing pouchitis, and a low quality of life after a colectomy + IPAA could make adjunct VSL#3 use a cost-effective strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Given present data, adjunct VSL#3 use for pediatric UC induction and maintenance of remission is not cost-effective, although several key parameters could make this strategy cost-effective. The quality of life after an IPAA is the single most important variable predicting whether this procedure benefits patients over escalating standard medical therapy.

Cost effectiveness of treatments for inflammatory bowel disease.

Traditionally, half of the direct costs associated with chronic inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) [Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC)] have related to hospital inpatient treatment for a sub-group of more severely affected, often therapy-resistant individuals. The advent of effective but relatively expensive biological agents has increased the contribution of drugs to overall medical care costs. This has focussed interest on the relative cost effectiveness of rival therapies for IBD and, in particular, on the affordability of long-term biological therapy. The purpose of this article is to review the available literature on this topic and to identify areas for future research. Head-to-head trials of competing treatment options are uncommon and clinical trials have seldom addressed cost effectiveness. In UC, models have explored the cost utility of 'high-' versus 'standard-' dose 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) therapy and the theoretical impact of improved adherence with once-daily formulations. In CD, cost-utility models for anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) drugs versus standard care have suggested consistently that incremental benefits are achieved at increased overall cost. However, studies of varying design have produced a wide spectrum of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates, which highlights the challenges and limitations of existing modelling techniques.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of MMX mesalazine compared with mesalazine in the treatment of mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis from a UK perspective.

OBJECTIVES: To perform a cost-utility analysis of a new formulation of mesalazine (Mezavant XL, MMX mesalazine) versus an existing oral mesalazine (Asacol; mesalazine) from the UK National Health Service perspective. METHODS: A 5-year Markov cohort model was developed. Costs were obtained from the literature and utilities from an independent study. Uncertainty was evaluated using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). The potential effect of dosing frequency on adherence and possible long-term effects of remission maintenance on colorectal cancer (CRC) rates were also investigated. RESULTS: The model suggested that 5-year therapy with MMX mesalazine was likely to generate gains when compared with mesalazine, including a gain of 0.011 QALYs per patient, 19 more remission days, and 12% fewer hospitalizations and surgical episodes. These gains came at an increase in total NHS direct cost of £8, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £749. The PSA suggested that MMX mesalazine had a 62% chance of resulting in cost savings, and a 74% chance of being cost-effective (£20,000 threshold). Extended analysis including adherence and CRC effects suggested further incremental benefit of MMX mesalazine over mesalazine could be expected. Limitations include uncertainty in extrapolation to a 5-year time horizon and impact of adherence and drug acquisition costs on outcomes. CONCLUSION: The pharmacoeconomic analysis suggested that MMX mesalazine is likely to produce small, but worthwhile, increases in total NHS direct cost while increasing time in remission and associated quality of life, when compared with mesalazine. Advantages in adherence to treatment with MMX mesalazine relative to mesalazine suggested that further health gains and cost savings can be obtained. Overall, these results suggest that MMX mesalazine is a cost-effective treatment for UC.