BACKGROUND: In Crohn's disease patients failing infliximab therapy, interventions defined by an algorithm based on infliximab and anti-infliximab antibody measurements have proven more cost-effective than intensifying the infliximab regimen. AIM: This study investigated long-term economic outcomes at the week 20 follow-up study visit and after 1 year. Clinical outcomes were assessed at week 20. METHODS: Follow-up from a 12-week, single-blind, clinical trial where patients with infliximab treatment failure were randomized to infliximab intensification (5 mg/kg every 4 weeks) (n = 36), or algorithm-defined interventions (n = 33). Accumulated costs, expressed as mean costs per patient, were based on the Danish National Patient Registry. RESULTS: At the scheduled week 20 follow-up study visit, response and remission rates were similar in all study subpopulations between patients treated by the algorithm or by infliximab intensification. However, the sum of healthcare costs related to Crohn's disease was substantially lower (31 %) for patients randomized to algorithm-based interventions than infliximab intensification in the intention-to-treat population: $11,940 versus $17,236; p = 0.005. For per-protocol patients (n = 55), costs at the week 20 follow-up visit were even lower (49 %) in the algorithm group: $8,742 versus $17,236; p = 0.002. Figures were similar for patients having completed the 12-week trial as per protocol (50 % reduction in costs) (n = 45). Among patients continuing the allocated study intervention throughout the entire 20-week follow-up period (n = 29), costs were reduced by 60 % in algorithm-treated patients: $7,056 versus $17,776; p < 0.001. Cost-reduction percentages remained stable throughout one year. CONCLUSION: Economic benefit of algorithm-based interventions at infliximab failure is maintained throughout 1 year.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: In Crohn's diseasepatients failing infliximab therapy, interventions defined by an algorithm based on infliximab and anti-infliximab antibody measurements have proven more cost-effective than intensifying the infliximab regimen. AIM: This study investigated long-term economic outcomes at the week 20 follow-up study visit and after 1 year. Clinical outcomes were assessed at week 20. METHODS: Follow-up from a 12-week, single-blind, clinical trial where patients with infliximab treatment failure were randomized to infliximab intensification (5 mg/kg every 4 weeks) (n = 36), or algorithm-defined interventions (n = 33). Accumulated costs, expressed as mean costs per patient, were based on the Danish National Patient Registry. RESULTS: At the scheduled week 20 follow-up study visit, response and remission rates were similar in all study subpopulations between patients treated by the algorithm or by infliximab intensification. However, the sum of healthcare costs related to Crohn's disease was substantially lower (31 %) for patients randomized to algorithm-based interventions than infliximab intensification in the intention-to-treat population: $11,940 versus $17,236; p = 0.005. For per-protocol patients (n = 55), costs at the week 20 follow-up visit were even lower (49 %) in the algorithm group: $8,742 versus $17,236; p = 0.002. Figures were similar for patients having completed the 12-week trial as per protocol (50 % reduction in costs) (n = 45). Among patients continuing the allocated study intervention throughout the entire 20-week follow-up period (n = 29), costs were reduced by 60 % in algorithm-treated patients: $7,056 versus $17,776; p < 0.001. Cost-reduction percentages remained stable throughout one year. CONCLUSION: Economic benefit of algorithm-based interventions at infliximab failure is maintained throughout 1 year.
Authors: A Dignass; G Van Assche; J O Lindsay; M Lémann; J Söderholm; J F Colombel; S Danese; A D'Hoore; M Gassull; F Gomollón; D W Hommes; P Michetti; C O'Morain; T Oresland; A Windsor; E F Stange; S P L Travis Journal: J Crohns Colitis Date: 2010-01-15 Impact factor: 9.071
Authors: Fernando S Velayos; James G Kahn; William J Sandborn; Brian G Feagan Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2013-01-26 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: R Khanna; B D Sattin; W Afif; E I Benchimol; E-J Bernard; A Bitton; B Bressler; R N Fedorak; S Ghosh; G R Greenberg; J K Marshall; R Panaccione; E G Seidman; M S Silverberg; A H Steinhart; R Sy; G Van Assche; T D Walters; W J Sandborn; B G Feagan Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2013-07-14 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Craig Mowat; Andrew Cole; Al Windsor; Tariq Ahmad; Ian Arnott; Richard Driscoll; Sally Mitton; Tim Orchard; Matt Rutter; Lisa Younge; Charlie Lees; Gwo-Tzer Ho; Jack Satsangi; Stuart Bloom Journal: Gut Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Adam Frymoyer; Daniël R Hoekman; Travis L Piester; Tim G de Meij; Thalia Z Hummel; Marc A Benninga; Angelika Kindermann; K T Park Journal: J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 2.839
Authors: Konstantinos Papamichael; Adam S Cheifetz; Gil Y Melmed; Peter M Irving; Niels Vande Casteele; Patricia L Kozuch; Laura E Raffals; Leonard Baidoo; Brian Bressler; Shane M Devlin; Jennifer Jones; Gilaad G Kaplan; Miles P Sparrow; Fernando S Velayos; Thomas Ullman; Corey A Siegel Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2019-03-27 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Helena Edlund; Casper Steenholdt; Mark A Ainsworth; Eva Goebgen; Jørn Brynskov; Ole Ø Thomsen; Wilhelm Huisinga; Charlotte Kloft Journal: AAPS J Date: 2016-10-13 Impact factor: 4.009
Authors: Joseph C Marini; Jocelyn Sendecki; Freddy Cornillie; John W Popp; Shawn Black; Marion Blank; Ann Gils; Thomas Van Stappen; Dörte Hamann; Theo Rispens; Lina Thérien; Kelly Chun; Gopi Shankar Journal: AAPS J Date: 2016-09-06 Impact factor: 4.009
Authors: Konstantinos Papamichael; Karen A Chachu; Ravy K Vajravelu; Byron P Vaughn; Josephine Ni; Mark T Osterman; Adam S Cheifetz Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2017-03-30 Impact factor: 11.382