IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v19y2018i2d10.1007_s10198-017-0879-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-effectiveness of vedolizumab compared with infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab in patients with ulcerative colitis in the United Kingdom

Author

Listed:
  • Michele R. Wilson

    (RTI Health Solutions)

  • Annika Bergman

    (Takeda Pharmaceuticals AG)

  • Helene Chevrou-Severac

    (Takeda Pharmaceuticals AG)

  • Ross Selby

    (Takeda UK Ltd.)

  • Michael Smyth

    (Takeda Development Centre Europe Ltd.)

  • Matthew C. Kerrigan

    (PHMR Limited)

Abstract

Objective To examine the clinical and economic impact of vedolizumab compared with infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab in the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) in the United Kingdom (UK). Methods A decision analytic model in Microsoft Excel was used to compare vedolizumab with other biologic treatments (infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab) for the treatment of biologic-naïve patients with UC in the UK. Efficacy data were obtained from a network meta-analysis using placebo as the common comparator. Other inputs (e.g., unit costs, adverse-event disutilities, probability of surgery, mortality) were obtained from published literature. Costs were presented in 2012/2013 British pounds. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs and outcomes were discounted by 3.5% per year. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were presented for vedolizumab compared with other biologics. Univariate and multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess model robustness to parameter uncertainty. Results The model predicted that anti-tumour necrosis factor-naïve patients on vedolizumab would accrue more QALY than patients on other biologics. The incremental results suggest that vedolizumab is a cost-effective treatment compared with adalimumab (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £22,735/QALY) and dominant compared with infliximab and golimumab. Sensitivity analyses suggest that results are most sensitive to treatment response and transition probabilities. However, vedolizumab is cost-effective irrespective of variation in any of the input parameters. Conclusions Our model predicted that treatment with vedolizumab improves QALY, increases time in remission and response, and is a cost-effective treatment option compared with all other biologics for biologic-naïve patients with moderately to severely active UC.

Suggested Citation

  • Michele R. Wilson & Annika Bergman & Helene Chevrou-Severac & Ross Selby & Michael Smyth & Matthew C. Kerrigan, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness of vedolizumab compared with infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab in patients with ulcerative colitis in the United Kingdom," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(2), pages 229-240, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:19:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s10198-017-0879-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-017-0879-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-017-0879-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-017-0879-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yogesh Punekar & Neil Hawkins, 2010. "Cost-effectiveness of infliximab for the treatment of acute exacerbations of ulcerative colitis," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 11(1), pages 67-76, February.
    2. Munira Essat & Paul Tappenden & Shijie Ren & Alice Bessey & Rachel Archer & Ruth Wong & Alan Lobo & Sami Hoque, 2016. "Vedolizumab for the Treatment of Adults with Moderate-to-Severe Active Ulcerative Colitis: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 245-257, March.
    3. Munira Essat & Paul Tappenden & Shijie Ren & Alice Bessey & Rachel Archer & Ruth Wong & Alan Lobo & Sami Hoque, 2016. "Vedolizumab for the Treatment of Adults with Moderate-to-Severe Active Ulcerative Colitis: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 245-257, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nadia Pillai & Mark Dusheiko & Bernard Burnand & Valérie Pittet, 2017. "A systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies comparing conventional, biological and surgical interventions for inflammatory bowel disease," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-22, October.
    2. Saara Huoponen & Marja Blom, 2015. "A Systematic Review of the Cost-Effectiveness of Biologics for the Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-23, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Ulcerative colitis; Vedolizumab; Cost-effectiveness; Economics; Inflammatory bowel disease;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I - Health, Education, and Welfare

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:19:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s10198-017-0879-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.