Cost-effectiveness analysis of branded and authorized generic celecoxib for patients with chronic pain in Japan.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of branded and authorized generic (AG) celecoxib for chronic pain patients with osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and low back pain (LBP), using real-world cost information for loxoprofen and pharmacotherapy for gastrointestinal bleeding. METHODS: This cost-effectiveness analysis was performed as a long-term simulation using the Markov model from the Japanese public healthcare payer's perspective. The analysis was conducted using loxoprofen with real-world weighted price by branded/generic distribution (hereinafter, loxoprofen with weighted price) as a comparator. In the model, we simulated the prognosis of patients with chronic pain by OA, RA, and LBP treated with loxoprofen or celecoxib, over a lifetime period. RESULTS: A cost-increase of 129,688 JPY (1,245.00 USD) for branded celecoxib and a cost-reduction of 6,268 JPY (60.17 USD) for AG celecoxib were recognized per patient in lifetime horizon, compared to loxoprofen with weighted price. No case was recognized to reverse the results of cost-saving by AG celecoxib in one-way sensitivity analysis. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of branded celecoxib attained 5,403,667 JPY/QALY (51,875.20 USD/QALY), compared to loxoprofen with the weighted price. CONCLUSION: The current cost-effectiveness analysis for AG celecoxib revealed its good value for costs, considering the patients' future risk of gastrointestinal injury; also, the impact on costs due to AG celecoxib against loxoprofen will be small. It implies that the disadvantage of AG celecoxib being slightly more expensive than generic loxoprofen could be offset by the good cost-effectiveness during the prognosis.

Cost-effectiveness of generic celecoxib in knee osteoarthritis for average-risk patients: a model-based evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: The cost-effectiveness of the recently-introduced generic celecoxib in knee OA has not been examined. METHOD: We used the Osteoarthritis Policy (OAPol) Model, a validated computer simulation of knee OA, to evaluate long-term clinical outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness of generic celecoxib in persons with knee OA. We examined eight treatment strategies consisting of generic celecoxib, over-the-counter (OTC) naproxen, or prescription naproxen, with or without prescription or OTC proton-pump-inhibitors (PPIs) to reduce gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. In the base case, we assumed that annual cost was $130 for OTC naproxen, $360 for prescription naproxen, and $880 for generic celecoxib. We considered a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and discounted costs and benefits at 3% annually. In sensitivity analyses we varied celecoxib toxicity, discontinuation, cost, and pain level. RESULTS: In the base case analysis of the high pain cohort (WOMAC 50), celecoxib had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $284,630/QALY compared with OTC naproxen. Only under highly favorable cost, toxicity, and discontinuation assumptions (e.g., annual cost below $360, combined with a reduction in the cardiovascular (CV) event rates below baseline values) was celecoxib likely to be cost-effective. Celecoxib might also be cost-effective at an annual cost of $600 if CV toxicity were eliminated completely. In subjects with moderate pain (WOMAC 30), at the base case CV event rate of 0.2%, generic celecoxib was only cost-effective at the lowest plausible cost ($190). CONCLUSION: In knee OA patients with no comorbidities, generic celecoxib is not cost-effective at its current price.

Cost-effectiveness of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis in older patients with multiple comorbidities.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate long-term clinical and economic outcomes of naproxen, ibuprofen, celecoxib or tramadol for OA patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and diabetes. DESIGN: We used the Osteoarthritis Policy Model to examine treatment with these analgesics after standard of care (SOC) - acetaminophen and corticosteroid injections - failed to control pain. NSAID regimens were evaluated with and without proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). We evaluated over-the-counter (OTC) regimens where available. Estimates of treatment efficacy (pain reduction, occurring in ∼57% of patients on all regimens) and toxicity (major cardiac or gastrointestinal toxicity or fractures, risk ranging from 1.09% with celecoxib to 5.62% with tramadol) were derived from published literature. Annual costs came from Red Book Online(®). Outcomes were discounted at 3%/year and included costs, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Key input parameters were varied in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Adding ibuprofen to SOC was cost saving, increasing QALYs by 0.07 while decreasing cost by $800. Incorporating OTC naproxen rather than ibuprofen added 0.01 QALYs and increased costs by $300, resulting in an ICER of $54,800/QALY. Using prescription naproxen with OTC PPIs led to an ICER of $76,700/QALY, while use of prescription naproxen with prescription PPIs resulted in an ICER of $252,300/QALY. Regimens including tramadol or celecoxib cost more but added fewer QALYs and thus were dominated by several of the naproxen-containing regimens. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with multiple comorbidities, naproxen- and ibuprofen-containing regimens are more effective and cost-effective in managing OA pain than opioids, celecoxib or SOC.

[Cost-effectiveness analysis of celecoxib versus non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy for the treatment of osteoarthritis in Spain: A current perspective]. / Análisis coste-efectividad de celecoxib frente a antiinflamatorios no esteroideos no selectivos en el tratamiento de la artrosis en España: una perspectiva actual.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of celecoxib and non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of osteoarthritis in clinical practice in Spain. METHODS: A decision-tree model using distribution, doses, treatment duration and incidence of GI and CV events observed in the pragmatic PROBE-designed «GI-Reasons¼ trial was used for cost-effectiveness. Effectiveness was expressed in terms of event averted and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) gained. QALY were calculated based on utility decrement in case of any adverse events reported in GI-Reasons trial. The National Health System perspective in Spain was applied; cost calculations included current prices of drugs plus cost of adverse events occurred. The analysis was expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per QALY gained and per event averted. One-way and probabilistic analyses were performed. RESULTS: Compared with non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, at current prices, celecoxib treatment had higher overall treatment costs €201 and €157, respectively. However, celecoxib was associated with a slight increase in QALY gain and significantly lower incidence of gastrointestinal events (p<.001), with mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €13,286 per QALY gained and €4,471 per event averted. Sensitivity analyses were robust, and confirmed the results of the base case. CONCLUSION: Celecoxib at current price may be considered as a cost-effective alternative vs. non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of osteoarthritis in daily practice in the Spanish NHS.

Actions following adverse drug events - how do these influence uptake and utilisation of newer and/or similar medications?

BACKGROUND: Over the last decade, actions following some adverse drug events received major publicity. This study investigated changes in usage patterns of medications in Australia following two examples - rofecoxib market withdrawal (2004) and warnings about jaw necrosis following bisphosphonates (2007). METHODS: Dispensing data for COX-2 inhibitors (2000-2008) and anti-osteoporosis medications (2003-2012) were obtained from the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme database. For bisphosphonates, data on Australian marketing expenditures were purchased from Cegedim(R). RESULTS: For COX-2 inhibitors, celecoxib dispensing halved after rofecoxib withdrawal, but meloxicam dispensing increased by 60 %. When lumiracoxib was introduced (2006) there was uptake of prescribing at a faster rate than meloxicam in 2002, its first year of use. For bisphosphonates, alendronate had highest use at the time of the warnings (8.3 DDD/1000/day), dropping to 4.9 DDD/1000/day by 2012. In contrast, risedronate use rose 2007-2012 from 4.1 to 4.9 DDD/1000/day. There was 49 % increase in reported annual expenditure on detailing for risedronate from 2007 to 2008 (to AUD$7.3 million) and only 29 % increase for alendronate (to AUD$3.1 million). CONCLUSIONS: The rapid uptake of prescribing of lumiracoxib and increased use of meloxicam flagged a concern, especially after rofecoxib withdrawal due to safety issues. Bisphosphonates are useful drugs, however the dramatic rise in expenditure on detailing, followed by a rise in utilisation of risedronate could suggest that adverse publicity triggered a marketing response. These examples highlight the importance of tracking utilisation of medication classes in real time, using different data as needed, to ensure that due caution is exercised (and quick intervention provided if needed) for medications in the same class.