C Rinciog1, A Diamantopoulos2, A Gentilini2, B Bondue3, C Dahlqvist4, A Froidure5, W A Wuyts6, S Soulard7. 1. Symmetron Limited, 8 Devonshire Square, London, UK. crinciog@symmetron.net. 2. Symmetron Limited, 8 Devonshire Square, London, UK. 3. Department of Respiratory Medicine, Erasme University Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium. 4. Department of Pneumology, CHU UCL Namur Site Godinne, Yvoir, Belgium. 5. Department of Pneumology, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), Brussels, Belgium. 6. Unit for Interstitial Lung Diseases, Department of Respiratory Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Louvain, Belgium. 7. Boehringer Ingelheim, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nintedanib (Ofev®) and pirfenidone (Esbriet®) are recommended by international guidelines as treatment options for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost-effectiveness of nintedanib with that of pirfenidone for the treatment of IPF from a Belgian healthcare payer perspective. METHODS: The economic analysis used a Markov model that calculated outcomes over patient lifetime. Overall survival was assumed to be the same for the two comparators. Data from a network meta-analysis were used for loss of lung function, acute exacerbation events, safety and treatment discontinuation (for any reason). The health-state utility estimates in the model were calculated from EQ-5D scores collected in nintedanib studies. The assumed resource use for background care was also based on patient-level data that were categorised to fit the health states in the model and synthesised with costs and tariffs from Belgian national databases. RESULTS: Treatment with nintedanib resulted in an estimated total cost of €102,315, which was less than the total cost of treatment with pirfenidone (€113,313). Given the similarities in the survival and progression outcomes obtained with nintedanib and pirfenidone, the model predicted near equivalence in total QALYs (3.353 QALYs for the nintedanib arm and 3.318 for the pirfenidone arm). Results were largely driven by model assumptions underlying mortality, acute exacerbations and treatment discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: After performing a synthesis of the most recently published evidence for IPF patients and assuming a Belgian healthcare payer perspective, we found nintedanib to be more cost-saving than pirfenidone.
BACKGROUND:Nintedanib (Ofev®) and pirfenidone (Esbriet®) are recommended by international guidelines as treatment options for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost-effectiveness of nintedanib with that of pirfenidone for the treatment of IPF from a Belgian healthcare payer perspective. METHODS: The economic analysis used a Markov model that calculated outcomes over patient lifetime. Overall survival was assumed to be the same for the two comparators. Data from a network meta-analysis were used for loss of lung function, acute exacerbation events, safety and treatment discontinuation (for any reason). The health-state utility estimates in the model were calculated from EQ-5D scores collected in nintedanib studies. The assumed resource use for background care was also based on patient-level data that were categorised to fit the health states in the model and synthesised with costs and tariffs from Belgian national databases. RESULTS: Treatment with nintedanib resulted in an estimated total cost of €102,315, which was less than the total cost of treatment with pirfenidone (€113,313). Given the similarities in the survival and progression outcomes obtained with nintedanib and pirfenidone, the model predicted near equivalence in total QALYs (3.353 QALYs for the nintedanib arm and 3.318 for the pirfenidone arm). Results were largely driven by model assumptions underlying mortality, acute exacerbations and treatment discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: After performing a synthesis of the most recently published evidence for IPFpatients and assuming a Belgian healthcare payer perspective, we found nintedanib to be more cost-saving than pirfenidone.
Authors: Harold R Collard; Bethany B Moore; Kevin R Flaherty; Kevin K Brown; Robert J Kaner; Talmadge E King; Joseph A Lasky; James E Loyd; Imre Noth; Mitchell A Olman; Ganesh Raghu; Jesse Roman; Jay H Ryu; David A Zisman; Gary W Hunninghake; Thomas V Colby; Jim J Egan; David M Hansell; Takeshi Johkoh; Naftali Kaminski; Dong Soon Kim; Yasuhiro Kondoh; David A Lynch; Joachim Müller-Quernheim; Jeffrey L Myers; Andrew G Nicholson; Moisés Selman; Galen B Toews; Athol U Wells; Fernando J Martinez Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2007-06-21 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Ganesh Raghu; Bram Rochwerg; Yuan Zhang; Carlos A Cuello Garcia; Arata Azuma; Juergen Behr; Jan L Brozek; Harold R Collard; William Cunningham; Sakae Homma; Takeshi Johkoh; Fernando J Martinez; Jeffrey Myers; Shandra L Protzko; Luca Richeldi; David Rind; Moisés Selman; Arthur Theodore; Athol U Wells; Henk Hoogsteden; Holger J Schünemann Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2015-07-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Fanny Porte; Vincent Cottin; Laura Catella; Laura Luciani; Katell Le Lay; Stève Bénard Journal: Curr Med Res Opin Date: 2018-03-09 Impact factor: 2.580
Authors: Luca Richeldi; Ulrich Costabel; Moises Selman; Dong Soon Kim; David M Hansell; Andrew G Nicholson; Kevin K Brown; Kevin R Flaherty; Paul W Noble; Ganesh Raghu; Michèle Brun; Abhya Gupta; Nolwenn Juhel; Matthias Klüglich; Roland M du Bois Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-09-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Luca Richeldi; Roland M du Bois; Ganesh Raghu; Arata Azuma; Kevin K Brown; Ulrich Costabel; Vincent Cottin; Kevin R Flaherty; David M Hansell; Yoshikazu Inoue; Dong Soon Kim; Martin Kolb; Andrew G Nicholson; Paul W Noble; Moisés Selman; Hiroyuki Taniguchi; Michèle Brun; Florence Le Maulf; Mannaïg Girard; Susanne Stowasser; Rozsa Schlenker-Herceg; Bernd Disse; Harold R Collard Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-05-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Timothy M Dempsey; Viengneesee Thao; James P Moriarty; Bijan J Borah; Andrew H Limper Journal: BMC Pulm Med Date: 2022-01-10 Impact factor: 3.317