Ashwin N Ananthakrishnan1, Chin Hur, Joshua R Korzenik. 1. Gastrointestinal Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital Crohn's and Colitis Center, 165 Cambridge Street, 9th Floor, Boston, MA 02114, USA. aananthakrishnan@partners.org
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A significant proportion of patients with Crohn's disease (CD) lose response to antibodies directed against tumor necrosis factor α (TNF). Prior TNF-antagonist failure is associated with lower rates of response to subsequent TNF-antagonist therapy. In patients failing two anti-TNF agents, a choice exists between using a third-anti-TNF therapy or natalizumab (NAT), an α-4 integrin inhibitor. A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing these competing strategies has not been performed. METHODS: A decision analytic model was constructed to compare the performance of certolizumab pegol (CZP) versus NAT in patients with moderate to severe CD. Previously published estimates of efficacy of third-line anti-TNF therapy and NAT were used to inform the model. Costs were expressed in 2010 US dollars. A 1-year time frame was used for the analysis. RESULTS: In the base case estimate, use of NAT was only marginally more effective [0.71 vs. 0.70 quality adjusted life-years (QALYs)] than CZP but was expensive with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $381,678 per QALY gained. For CZP 2 months response rate of at least 24%, NAT had an ICER above the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. The model was sensitive to the costs of both therapies; for all CZP costs below $2,300 per dose, NAT had higher ICER than the WTP threshold. Substituting adalimumab for CZP resulted in similar ICER estimates and thresholds for NAT use. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderate to severe CD failing two TNF-antagonists, using a third TNF-antagonist therapy appears to be a cost-effective strategy without significantly compromising treatment efficacy.
INTRODUCTION: A significant proportion of patients with Crohn's disease (CD) lose response to antibodies directed against tumor necrosis factor α (TNF). Prior TNF-antagonist failure is associated with lower rates of response to subsequent TNF-antagonist therapy. In patients failing two anti-TNF agents, a choice exists between using a third-anti-TNF therapy or natalizumab (NAT), an α-4 integrin inhibitor. A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing these competing strategies has not been performed. METHODS: A decision analytic model was constructed to compare the performance of certolizumab pegol (CZP) versus NAT in patients with moderate to severe CD. Previously published estimates of efficacy of third-line anti-TNF therapy and NAT were used to inform the model. Costs were expressed in 2010 US dollars. A 1-year time frame was used for the analysis. RESULTS: In the base case estimate, use of NAT was only marginally more effective [0.71 vs. 0.70 quality adjusted life-years (QALYs)] than CZP but was expensive with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $381,678 per QALY gained. For CZP 2 months response rate of at least 24%, NAT had an ICER above the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. The model was sensitive to the costs of both therapies; for all CZP costs below $2,300 per dose, NAT had higher ICER than the WTP threshold. Substituting adalimumab for CZP resulted in similar ICER estimates and thresholds for NAT use. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderate to severe CD failing two TNF-antagonists, using a third TNF-antagonist therapy appears to be a cost-effective strategy without significantly compromising treatment efficacy.
Authors: David B Clifford; Andrea De Luca; Andrea DeLuca; David M Simpson; Gabriele Arendt; Gavin Giovannoni; Avindra Nath Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Ingrid Arijs; Roel Quintens; Leentje Van Lommel; Kristel Van Steen; Gert De Hertogh; Katleen Lemaire; Anica Schraenen; Clémentine Perrier; Gert Van Assche; Séverine Vermeire; Karel Geboes; Frans Schuit; Paul Rutgeerts Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 5.325
Authors: Stephen B Hanauer; Brian G Feagan; Gary R Lichtenstein; Lloyd F Mayer; S Schreiber; Jean Frederic Colombel; Daniel Rachmilewitz; Douglas C Wolf; Allan Olson; Weihang Bao; Paul Rutgeerts Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-05-04 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: S Lichtiger; D G Binion; D C Wolf; D H Present; A G Bensimon; E Wu; A P Yu; A T Cardoso; J Chao; P M Mulani; K G Lomax; J D Kent Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2010-09-28 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: M Allez; S Vermeire; N Mozziconacci; P Michetti; D Laharie; E Louis; M-A Bigard; X Hébuterne; X Treton; A Kohn; P Marteau; A Cortot; C Nichita; G van Assche; P Rutgeerts; M Lémann; J-F Colombel Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Jason E Gonzaga; Ashwin N Ananthakrishnan; Mazen Issa; Dawn B Beaulieu; Sue Skaros; Yelena Zadvornova; Kathryn Johnson; Mary F Otterson; David G Binion Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis Date: 2009-05-21 Impact factor: 5.325
Authors: Charles W Randall; John A Vizuete; Nicholas Martinez; John J Alvarez; Karthik V Garapati; Mazyar Malakouti; Carlo M Taboada Journal: Therap Adv Gastroenterol Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 4.409
Authors: Frank I Scott; Mark T Osterman; Ryan A McConnell; Monica Lorusso; Faten Aberra; Caroline Kerner; Gary R Lichtenstein; James D Lewis Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 5.325