Literature DB >> 11280106

Economic evaluation of celecoxib, a new cyclo-oxygenase 2 specific inhibitor, in Switzerland.

J V Chancellor1, E Hunsche, E de Cruz, F P Sarasin.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to predict the cost effectiveness of celecoxib, a cyclo-oxygenase 2 (COX-2) specific inhibitor, in the treatment of arthritis patients in Switzerland.
METHODS: We applied a decision analytical model to compare the effects of 6 months' treatment with the following: (i) celecoxib; (ii) nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) alone; NSAID protected with (iii) proton pump inhibitor (PPI), (iv) histamine H2 receptor antagonist (H2RA), or (v) misoprostol; and (vi) diclofenac/misoprostol. Treatment costs included drug acquisition and the management of gastrointestinal (GI) adverse effects, classified as GI discomfort, symptomatic ulcer, anaemia and serious GI events (requiring hospitalisation). Probabilities were derived from celecoxib clinical trials and the literature. Drug utilisation patterns and treatment costs reflecting Swiss practice were obtained from local sources. Analysis was from the public health insurers' perspective. A range of sensitivity analyses was performed.
RESULTS: For the base case of patients at typical risk (0.56% per 6 months) of serious GI events, the total expected costs of 6 months' treatment were as follows: celecoxib 435 Swiss francs (SwF); NSAID alone SwF510; diclofenac/misoprostol SwF522; and other protected NSAID regimens between SwF1034 and SwF1415. Celecoxib remained the lowest costing treatment over all categories of GI risk. Celecoxib generated 115 expected adverse events per 1000 patients per 6 months, followed by NSAID + PPI (119), NSAID + H2RA (154), NSAID + misoprostol (202), diclofenac/misoprostol (203), and NSAID alone (220), again for the base case. The cost per adverse event averted for celecoxib compared with NSAIDs alone was estimated in a stochastic version of the model using Monte Carlo simulation. In 95% of 500 iterations, celecoxib was predicted to save both costs and adverse events, thus dominating NSAIDs alone; the maximum cost per adverse event averted was SwF440.
CONCLUSIONS: Celecoxib is predicted to be the most cost effective of the treatments considered for managing arthritis patients in Switzerland. A policy of switching patients from NSAIDs to celecoxib is predicted to be cost saving for public health insurers, while reducing the burden of iatrogenic GI side effects. Greater cost savings would be realised when patients are switched from NSAIDs used with gastroprotective agents. Models such as this can provide a useful but simplified view of treatment outcomes and predicted results require prospective validation in clinical practice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11280106     DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200119001-00005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  26 in total

1.  The gastroduodenal safety and efficacy of the fixed combination of diclofenac and misoprostol in the treatment of osteoarthritis.

Authors:  W Bolten; J A Gomes; H Stead; G S Geis
Journal:  Br J Rheumatol       Date:  1992-11

2.  A double-blind comparison of the gastroduodenal safety and efficacy of diclofenac and a fixed dose combination of diclofenac and misoprostol in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

Authors:  W Verdickt; C Moran; H Hantzschel; A M Fraga; H Stead; G S Geis
Journal:  Scand J Rheumatol       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 3.641

3.  Misoprostol in the prevention of NSAID-induced gastric ulcer: a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Authors:  S H Roth
Journal:  J Rheumatol Suppl       Date:  1990-02

4.  Comparison of the upper gastrointestinal safety of Arthrotec 75 and nabumetone in osteoarthritis patients at high risk for developing nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced gastrointestinal ulcers.

Authors:  N M Agrawal; J Caldwell; A J Kivitz; A L Weaver; T S Bocanegra; J Ball; S Dhadda; S Hurley; L Hancock
Journal:  Clin Ther       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 3.393

5.  Omeprazole compared with misoprostol for ulcers associated with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. Omeprazole versus Misoprostol for NSAID-induced Ulcer Management (OMNIUM) Study Group.

Authors:  C J Hawkey; J A Karrasch; L Szczepañski; D G Walker; A Barkun; A J Swannell; N D Yeomans
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1998-03-12       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Duodenal and gastric ulcer prevention with misoprostol in arthritis patients taking NSAIDs. Misoprostol Study Group.

Authors:  D Y Graham; R H White; L W Moreland; T T Schubert; R Katz; R Jaszewski; E Tindall; G Triadafilopoulos; S C Stromatt; L S Teoh
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1993-08-15       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Prevention of peptic ulcer and dyspeptic symptoms with omeprazole in patients receiving continuous non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy. A Nordic multicentre study.

Authors:  P Ekström; L Carling; S Wetterhus; P E Wingren; O Anker-Hansen; G Lundegårdh; E Thorhallsson; P Unge
Journal:  Scand J Gastroenterol       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 2.423

8.  Double-blind comparison of efficacy and gastroduodenal safety of diclofenac/misoprostol, piroxicam, and naproxen in the treatment of osteoarthritis.

Authors:  J A Melo Gomes; S H Roth; J Zeeh; G A Bruyn; E M Woods; G S Geis
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 19.103

9.  Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-associated gastropathy: incidence and risk factor models.

Authors:  J F Fries; C A Williams; D A Bloch; B A Michel
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1991-09       Impact factor: 4.965

10.  Misoprostol dosage in the prevention of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced gastric and duodenal ulcers: a comparison of three regimens.

Authors:  J B Raskin; R H White; J E Jackson; A L Weaver; E A Tindall; R B Lies; D S Stanton
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1995-09-01       Impact factor: 25.391

View more
  13 in total

Review 1.  Selective COX-2 inhibitors: a health economic perspective.

Authors:  David L B Schwappach; Christian M Koeck
Journal:  Wien Med Wochenschr       Date:  2003

Review 2.  Celecoxib: a review of its use for symptomatic relief in the treatment of osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis.

Authors:  Paul L McCormack
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2011-12-24       Impact factor: 9.546

3.  Principles for evidence-based drug formulary policy.

Authors:  Gregory E Simon; Bruce M Psaty; Jennifer Berg Hrachovec; Marc Mora
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Modelling therapeutic strategies in the treatment of osteoarthritis: an economic evaluation of meloxicam versus diclofenac and piroxicam.

Authors:  Manouche Tavakoli
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis comparing rofecoxib with nonselective NSAIDs in osteoarthritis: Ontario Ministry of Health perspective.

Authors:  J K Marshall; J M Pellissier; C L Attard; S X Kong; M A Marentette
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Economic evaluation of etoricoxib versus non-selective NSAIDs in the treatment of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis patients in the UK.

Authors:  Andrew Moore; Ceri Phillips; Elke Hunsche; James Pellissier; Simone Crespi
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  A comparison of cost effectiveness using data from randomized trials or actual clinical practice: selective cox-2 inhibitors as an example.

Authors:  Tjeerd-Pieter van Staa; Hubert G Leufkens; Bill Zhang; Liam Smeeth
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2009-12-08       Impact factor: 11.069

8.  Have COX-2 inhibitors influenced the co-prescription of anti-ulcer drugs with NSAIDs?

Authors:  Mary Teeling; Kathleen Bennett; John Feely
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 4.335

9.  Economic evaluation of tramadol/paracetamol combination tablets for osteoarthritis pain in the Netherlands.

Authors:  Hiltrud Liedgens; Mark J C Nuijten; Barbara Poulsen Nautrup
Journal:  Clin Drug Investig       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.859

Review 10.  Assessing the economic impact of adverse drug effects.

Authors:  Rosa Rodríguez-Monguió; María José Otero; Joan Rovira
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.