Trial-based cost-effectiveness of abatacept for rheumatoid arthritis patients in Italy.

INTRODUCTION: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, inflammatory disorder leading to disability and reduced quality of life. Effective treatment is a significant economic burden on the Italian healthcare system. Economic models in RA are commonly based on indirect treatment comparisons. METHODS: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of abatacept relative to adalimumab for RA in Italy based on a head-to-head trial by means of a cost-consequence analysis. RESULTS: Health benefits based on the most stringent efficacy criteria were in favor of abatacept compared to adalimumab. Rates for more costly adverse events were higher for adalimumab compared to abatacept, which was reflected in the lower costs for abatacept (-€237,246 or -€237per patient). CONCLUSION: The health economic value of abatacept compared with adalimumab from the perspective of the Italian NHS depends on the choice of health outcome. Health gains with abatacept were generally based on more stringent criteria and lower total costs.

Economic evaluation of posaconazole vs fluconazole in the prevention of invasive fungal infections in patients with GVHD following haematopoietic SCT.

Posaconazole has been proven to be as effective as fluconazole in the prevention of invasive fungal infections (IFI) in allogeneic haematopoietic SCT patients with GVHD. We assessed, from the perspective of the Spanish National Health Service, the cost-effectiveness of posaconazole vs fluconazole in preventing IFI. A decision-analytic model was developed to assess the average per patient treatment costs, IFIs avoided, life-years gained (LYG) and incremental cost per LYG for each prophylactic treatment used (in euros at 2007 prices). Patients are assumed to have received either posaconazole or fluconazole. The probabilities of IFI, IFI-related death and death from other causes were obtained from a single clinical trial. Long-term mortality and costs were estimated from secondary sources. Posaconazole was associated with fewer IFIs (5.3 vs 9%), increased LYG (8.01 vs 7.78) and higher IFI-related costs ([euro]11 585 vs [euro]6 959) per patient compared with fluconazole. The incremental cost-effectiveness of posaconazole vs fluconazole was estimated at [euro]20 246 per LYG. There was a 70% probability that posaconazole is cost-effective at a [euro]30 000 per LYG threshold. In conclusion, compared with fluconazole, posaconazole prophylaxis is a cost-effective strategy for the prevention of IFI in patients with GVHD.