Cost-effectiveness of sequential urate lowering therapies for the management of gout in Singapore.

Aims: Allopurinol is the most common urate lowering therapy (ULT) used to treat gout but may cause life-threatening severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCAR) in a small number of patients. Risk of SCAR is increased for patients with the HLA-B*58:01 genotype. When alternative ULT is required, febuxostat or probenecid are recommended. The aim of this study was to conduct a cost-utility analysis of sequential ULT treatment strategies for gout, including strategies with and without HLA-B*58:01 genotyping prior to treatment initiation, with a view to inform optimal gout management in Singapore.Materials and methods: A Markov model was developed from the Singapore healthcare payer perspective. Reflecting local practice, 12 different treatment strategies containing at least one ULT (allopurinol, febuxostat, probenecid) were evaluated in adults with gout. Response rates (SUA < 6mg/dL) were derived from an in-house network meta-analysis and from published literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated over a 30-year time horizon, with costs and benefits discounted at 3% per annum. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore uncertainties.Results: Sequential treatment of allopurinol 300 mg/day-allopurinol 600 mg/day-probenecid ("standard of care") was cost-effective compared to no ULT, with an ICER of SGD1,584/QALY. Allopurinol300-allopurinol600-probenecid-febuxostat sequence compared to allopurinol300-allopurinol600-probenecid had an ICER of SGD11,400/QALY. All other treatment strategies were dominated by preceding strategies. Treatment strategies incorporating HLA-B*58:01 genotyping before ULT use were dominated by the corresponding non-genotyping strategy.Conclusions: Current standard of care (allopurinol300-allopurinol 600-probenecid) for gout is cost-effective compared with no ULT in the local context. Febuxostat is unlikely to be cost-effective in Singapore at current prices unless it is used last-line.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Sunitinib versus Interferon-Alfa for First-Line Treatment of Advanced and/or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in Singapore.

OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sunitinib versus interferon-alfa for the treatment of advanced and/or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in Singapore. METHODS: A partitioned survival model with three health states (progression-free, progressive disease, and death) was developed from a healthcare payer perspective over a 10-year time horizon. Survival curves from the pivotal trial of sunitinib versus interferon-alfa were extrapolated beyond the trial period to estimate the underlying progression-free survival and overall survival parametric distributions. Health state utilities were derived from the literature and direct costs were sourced from local public healthcare institutions. The sunitinib dose in the model reflected local prescribing practices whereby a combination of 50 mg (28 percent) and 37.5 mg (72 percent) strengths are used. RESULTS: The base-case analysis comparing sunitinib versus interferon-alfa resulted in an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SGD191,061 (USD139,757) per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the ICER was most sensitive to variations in the utility value assumed for the progression-free health state and the price of sunitinib. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of any price reduction, sunitinib had an exceedingly high ICER and was not considered a cost-effective use of healthcare resources in Singapore's context for the first-line treatment of advanced RCC. The findings from our evaluation will be useful to inform local healthcare decision making and resource allocations for tyrosine kinase inhibitors when appraised alongside comparative clinical effectiveness data and payer affordability considerations.