Xueshan Sun1, Xuemei Zhen2,3, Xiaoqian Hu1, Yuanyuan Li1, Shuyan Gu4, Yuxuan Gu1, Zixuan Zhao1, Wei Yang5, Hengjin Dong1,6. 1. Center for Health Policy Studies, School of Public Health, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China. 2. School of Health Care Management, Shandong University, Jinan, China. 3. NHC Key Laboratory of Health Economics and Policy Research (Shandong University), Jinan, China. 4. Center for Health Policy and Management Studies, School of Government, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China. 5. Shanghai Su-Value Health Scientific Ltd., Shanghai, China. 6. The Fourth Affiliated Hospital Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Yiwu, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to compare the long-term cost-utility of imrecoxib and celecoxib for patients with osteoarthritis (OA) from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. METHODS: An economic model was built based on the model from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). The simulation was carried out initially for 100 cycles of 3 months each, starting with 10,000 patients. A discount rate of 5% was applied both for cost and utility. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were adopted as the utility indicator, and real-world data from the hospital information systems of 170 hospitals was collected to indicate cost. The relative incidence rates of adverse events (AEs) with imrecoxib and celecoxib were collected from randomized controlled trials. Sensitivity analysis was performed to validate the robustness of the model. RESULTS: In the base case analysis (6-month treatment duration, 55 years old and above), imrecoxib was the more cost-effective option compared to celecoxib, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $3,041.14. This finding remained unchanged after varying the treatment duration and the age of the patients. The main drivers of the results were the relative incidence of myocardial infarction (MI), the cost of imrecoxib, and the utility of OA patients without any AEs. Probability sensitivity analysis (PSA) showed that there was a 59.02% probability of imrecoxib as the more cost-effective option, with a threshold of $30,000. CONCLUSIONS: Although there were uncertainties, imrecoxib was the more cost-effective option compared to celecoxib, with a definite possibility. Due to the limitations of the original model and this study, the results of this study should be adopted with caution. 2021 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to compare the long-term cost-utility of imrecoxib and celecoxib for patients with osteoarthritis (OA) from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. METHODS: An economic model was built based on the model from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). The simulation was carried out initially for 100 cycles of 3 months each, starting with 10,000 patients. A discount rate of 5% was applied both for cost and utility. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were adopted as the utility indicator, and real-world data from the hospital information systems of 170 hospitals was collected to indicate cost. The relative incidence rates of adverse events (AEs) with imrecoxib and celecoxib were collected from randomized controlled trials. Sensitivity analysis was performed to validate the robustness of the model. RESULTS: In the base case analysis (6-month treatment duration, 55 years old and above), imrecoxib was the more cost-effective option compared to celecoxib, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $3,041.14. This finding remained unchanged after varying the treatment duration and the age of the patients. The main drivers of the results were the relative incidence of myocardial infarction (MI), the cost of imrecoxib, and the utility of OA patients without any AEs. Probability sensitivity analysis (PSA) showed that there was a 59.02% probability of imrecoxib as the more cost-effective option, with a threshold of $30,000. CONCLUSIONS: Although there were uncertainties, imrecoxib was the more cost-effective option compared to celecoxib, with a definite possibility. Due to the limitations of the original model and this study, the results of this study should be adopted with caution. 2021 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved.
Authors: Karl Claxton; Mark Sculpher; Chris McCabe; Andrew Briggs; Ron Akehurst; Martin Buxton; John Brazier; Tony O'Hagan Journal: Health Econ Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Thomas E Delea; Jonathan Karnon; Robert E Smith; Stephen R D Johnston; Jane Brandman; Jennifer C Y Sung; Paul E Gross Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 2.229