RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Today, there are many treatment options available for the management of ulcerative colitis, creating challenges in selecting the most efficacious and cost-effective treatment sequences. Treatments in the anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) therapeutic class, as well as vedolizumab, are widely used and endorsed as first-line options according to treatment guidelines. The aim of this study was to compare treatment sequences involving vedolizumab and the anti-TNFα treatment adalimumab in terms of cost-effectiveness in the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in Italy. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model comparing treatment sequences within the Italian National Health Service in terms of costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with a lifetime horizon was developed. The analysis focused on the relative positioning of vedolizumab and adalimumab, leveraging the results of the landmark head-to-head VARSITY clinical trial as key inputs. The robustness of the results was investigated through a range of sensitivity and scenario analyses. RESULTS: The strategy of vedolizumab as a first-line advanced therapy followed by adalimumab was associated with higher costs and health benefits compared with first-line adalimumab followed by vedolizumab. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 16,146/QALY, which was found to be robust to changes to inputs associated with areas of high uncertainty. CONCLUSION: This economic evaluation estimated a 94% probability that vedolizumab as a first-line advanced therapy is cost-effective at a threshold of 33,004/QALY when compared with first-line adalimumab sequences. Using clinical trial evidence to inform the efficacy of second-line treatments estimated that the effectiveness of anti-TNFα treatments is not substantially reduced by vedolizumab exposure.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a leading cause of blindness in developed countries, with significant disease burden associated with socio-economic deprivation. Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA) allows evaluation of health equity impacts of interventions, estimation of how health outcomes and costs are distributed in the population, and assessments of potential trade-offs between health maximisation and equity. We conducted an aggregate DCEA to determine the equity impact of faricimab. METHODS: Data on health outcomes and costs were derived from a cost-effectiveness model of faricimab compared with ranibizumab, aflibercept and off-label bevacizumab using a societal perspective in the base case and a healthcare payer perspective in scenario analysis. Health gains and health opportunity costs were distributed across socio-economic subgroups. Health and equity impacts, measured using the Atkinson inequality index, were assessed visually on an equity-efficiency impact plane and combined into a measure of societal welfare. RESULTS: At an opportunity cost threshold of £20,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY), faricimab displayed an increase in net health benefits against all comparators and was found to improve equity. The equity impact increased the greater the concerns for reducing health inequalities over maximising population health. Using a healthcare payer perspective, faricimab was equity improving in most scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Long-acting therapies with fewer injections, such as faricimab, may reduce costs, improve health outcomes and increase health equity. Extended economic evaluation frameworks capturing additional value elements, such as DCEA, enable a more comprehensive valuation of interventions, which is of relevance to decision-makers, healthcare professionals and patients.