Author
Listed:
- Stephen Beard
- Birgitta Scheele
- George Nuki
- Isobel Pearson
Abstract
Our objective was to evaluate data on the cost-effectiveness of febuxostat compared with standard clinical practice with allopurinol in patients with gout that was presented to the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) in 2010. A Markov health-state model estimated the direct health-related costs and clinical benefits expressed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Adults with chronic gout and established hyperuricaemia received treatment sequences of daily doses of allopurinol 300 mg alone or allopurinol 300 mg followed by febuxostat 80 mg/120 mg. The proportion of patients achieving the target serum uric acid (sUA) level of less than 6 mg/dl (0.36 mmol/l) was linked to the utility per sUA level to generate an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Second-line therapy with febuxostat 80 mg/120 mg versus with allopurinol alone resulted in an ICER of £3,578 per QALY over a 5-year time horizon. Additional univariate analyses showed that ICER values were robust and ranged from £2,550 to £7,165 per QALY when different parameters (e.g., low- and high-dose allopurinol titrations and variations in treatment-induced flare rates) were varied. Febuxostat reduces sUA below the European League Against Rheumatism target of 0.36 mmol/l (6 mg/dl) in significantly more patients with gout than allopurinol in its most frequently prescribed dose of 300 mg per day. The SMC accepted febuxostat as cost-effective as a suitable second-line option for urate-lowering therapy for the treatment of patients with chronic hyperuricaemia in conditions where urate deposition has already occurred (including a history or presence of tophus and/or gouty arthritis) when treatment with allopurinol was inadequate, not tolerated, or contraindicated. Copyright Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014
Suggested Citation
Stephen Beard & Birgitta Scheele & George Nuki & Isobel Pearson, 2014.
"Cost-effectiveness of febuxostat in chronic gout,"
The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(5), pages 453-463, June.
Handle:
RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:15:y:2014:i:5:p:453-463
DOI: 10.1007/s10198-013-0486-z
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
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:15:y:2014:i:5:p:453-463. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.