Advances in therapy · 2021
Economic Evaluation of Budesonide Orodispersible Tablets for the Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Cost-Utility Analysis.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Beauchemin C, Castonguay A, Chan E S, Dellon E S, Feagan B G, Ma C, Waserman S, Cook J, Claveau D
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Budesonide orodispersible tablets (BOT) have been approved in Europe and Canada for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), a rare and chronic disease. The objective of this study was to assess the economic impact of BOT on both the induction and maintenance of clinico-pathological remission of EoE by performing a cost-utility analysis (CUA).
METHODS: For both the induction and maintenance settings, BOT was compared to no treatment in a target population of adult patients with EoE non-responsive to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment. Markov models were developed for the induction and maintenance settings over 52-week and life-time horizons, respectively. Analyses were performed from both a Canadian Ministry of Health (MoH) and societal perspective. The resulting incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) were compared to a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000 Canadian dollars/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the base-case results.
RESULTS: In the base-case probabilistic analysis, BOT compared to no treatment resulted in an ICUR of $1073/QALY and $30,555/QALY from a MoH perspective in the induction and maintenance settings, respectively. BOT was a cost-effective option for both induction and maintenance in > 99% of Monte Carlo simulations. In the scenario analyses, the deterministic ICUR of BOT compared to no treatment varied from $682/QALY to $8510/QALY in the induction setting and $21,005/QALY to $55,157/QALY in the maintenance setting.
CONCLUSION: BOT was cost-effective compared to no treatment for both the induction and maintenance of clinico-pathological remission of EoE in patients non-responsive to PPIs.
METHODS: For both the induction and maintenance settings, BOT was compared to no treatment in a target population of adult patients with EoE non-responsive to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment. Markov models were developed for the induction and maintenance settings over 52-week and life-time horizons, respectively. Analyses were performed from both a Canadian Ministry of Health (MoH) and societal perspective. The resulting incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) were compared to a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000 Canadian dollars/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the base-case results.
RESULTS: In the base-case probabilistic analysis, BOT compared to no treatment resulted in an ICUR of $1073/QALY and $30,555/QALY from a MoH perspective in the induction and maintenance settings, respectively. BOT was a cost-effective option for both induction and maintenance in > 99% of Monte Carlo simulations. In the scenario analyses, the deterministic ICUR of BOT compared to no treatment varied from $682/QALY to $8510/QALY in the induction setting and $21,005/QALY to $55,157/QALY in the maintenance setting.
CONCLUSION: BOT was cost-effective compared to no treatment for both the induction and maintenance of clinico-pathological remission of EoE in patients non-responsive to PPIs.