M P Connolly1, C Boersma, B Oldenburg. 1. Unit of PharmacoEpidemiology & PharmacoEconomics, Department of Pharmacy, University of Groningen, the Netherlands. mark@gmasoln.com
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In this study we investigate the costs and benefits of topical mesalazine combined with oral mesalazine therapy for active ulcerative colitis (UC), and once daily (OD ) mesalazine 2 grams versus twice daily (BID ) for maintaining UC remission. METHODS: Two decision analytic models were constructed to evaluate treatment costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with mesalazine. The first model explored 4 g oral mesalazine in combination with 1 g topical mesalazine during active UC compared with 4 g oral mesalazine monotherapy for achieving clinical remission. The second model compared remission rates at one year for OD 2 g oral mesalazine compared with BID 1 g adjusted for compliance. All direct costs were obtained from established treatment costs in the Netherlands. RESULTS: The average cost of treatment to transition an active UC patient into remission using oral plus topical mesalazine or oral mesalazine monotherapy was v2207 (95% CI: v1402 to v3332) and v2945 (95% CI: v1717 to v4592), respectively. The annual average cost-saving of adding topical mesalazine delivered for four weeks during active UC was v738. The average annual costs of maintenance of remission with OD and BID therapy were v1293 (95% CI: v1062 to v1496) and v1502 (95% CI: v1262 to 1708), respectively with an annual average per person savings of v209. CONCLUSION: Topical mesalazine during acute UC flares results in lower costs due to reduced healthcare consumption attributed to faster symptom resolution. Furthermore, as a result of lower costs and modest QALY gains, maintenance therapy using OD mesalazine is the dominant treatment option if compared with BID mesalazine.
BACKGROUND: In this study we investigate the costs and benefits of topical mesalazine combined with oral mesalazine therapy for active ulcerative colitis (UC), and once daily (OD ) mesalazine 2 grams versus twice daily (BID ) for maintaining UC remission. METHODS: Two decision analytic models were constructed to evaluate treatment costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with mesalazine. The first model explored 4 g oral mesalazine in combination with 1 g topical mesalazine during active UC compared with 4 g oral mesalazine monotherapy for achieving clinical remission. The second model compared remission rates at one year for OD 2 g oral mesalazine compared with BID 1 g adjusted for compliance. All direct costs were obtained from established treatment costs in the Netherlands. RESULTS: The average cost of treatment to transition an active UC patient into remission using oral plus topical mesalazine or oral mesalazine monotherapy was v2207 (95% CI: v1402 to v3332) and v2945 (95% CI: v1717 to v4592), respectively. The annual average cost-saving of adding topical mesalazine delivered for four weeks during active UC was v738. The average annual costs of maintenance of remission with OD and BID therapy were v1293 (95% CI: v1062 to v1496) and v1502 (95% CI: v1262 to 1708), respectively with an annual average per person savings of v209. CONCLUSION: Topical mesalazine during acute UC flares results in lower costs due to reduced healthcare consumption attributed to faster symptom resolution. Furthermore, as a result of lower costs and modest QALY gains, maintenance therapy using OD mesalazine is the dominant treatment option if compared with BIDmesalazine.
Authors: Edouard Louis; Kristine Paridaens; Sameer Al Awadhi; Jakob Begun; Jae Hee Cheon; Axel U Dignass; Fernando Magro; Juan Ricardo Márquez; Alexander R Moschen; Neeraj Narula; Grazyna Rydzewska; Matthew J Freddi; Simon Pl Travis Journal: BMJ Open Gastroenterol Date: 2022-02