Cost-Effectiveness of Colchicine Prophylaxis for Gout Flares When Commencing Allopurinol.

OBJECTIVE: Colchicine prophylaxis to prevent gout flares when commencing urate-lowering therapy is recommended by international rheumatology society guidelines. Whether this is a cost-effective intervention is currently unknown. Our objective was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis using both a US cost input model and an Australian cost input model. METHODS: This cost-effectiveness analysis was completed from the point of view of the third-party payer. We used a 2-arm decision tree with 1 arm commencing allopurinol with no colchicine prophylaxis and the other with colchicine prophylaxis. Model inputs were drawn from published literature where available. We completed a univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to confirm the robust nature of the modeling. The time frame for the model was 6 months. RESULTS: The colchicine prophylaxis arm resulted in a cost of $1,276 and 0.49 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), while in the placebo arm the cost was $516 and 0.47 QALYs, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $34,004 per QALY gained. In Australia, where cost of colchicine was much lower, the colchicine arm dominated the placebo ($208 [Australian] in the colchicine arm versus $415 [Australian] in the placebo). Univariate and probability sensitivity analysis demonstrated that results were robust to changes in input parameters. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability of colchicine prophylaxis being the most cost-effective option was 93% in the US and 100% in the Australian setting. CONCLUSION: Colchicine prophylaxis to prevent gout flares while commencing allopurinol in gout is very cost-effective.

Colchicine: an affordable anti-inflammatory agent for atherosclerosis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Inflammation has been shown to be central to the development and progression of atherosclerosis. Despite detailed understanding of its central role and the cellular dynamics, which contribute to atherosclerotic inflammation, there has been slow progress in finding suitable agents to treat it. The recent CANTOS trial showed that the interleukin-1ß inhibitor canakinumab can improve outcomes after acute coronary syndromes. Being a monoclonal antibody, it is expensive and inconvenient to administer for long-term treatment. This review summarizes recent work in finding effective, affordable alternatives to canakinumab. RECENT FINDINGS: Statin drugs have anti-inflammatory properties but separating their LDL lowering effect from their anti-inflammatory effect has been difficult. Drugs acting on targets outside of the interleukin-1ß (IL-1ß) pathway have been tested without finding a suitable candidate. Following the proof of principle provided by the success of canakinumab, other candidates targeting the IL-1ß pathway are undergoing detailed evaluation. The most likely candidates are low-dose methotrexate and low-dose colchicine. The potential mechanisms and ongoing clinical trials are described. SUMMARY: Targeting the IL-1ß pathway has already been successful with canakinumab but its expense and inconvenience of administration may limit its widespread uptake for controlling inflammation in atherosclerosis. Low-dose methotrexate and low-dose colchicine are affordable and more accessible alternatives, currently undergoing detailed evaluation for safety and efficacy in large randomized controlled trials.

Cost-effectiveness of colchicine treatment on post-operative atrial fibrillation events in patients of major cardiac surgery.

Aims: Post-operative atrial fibrillation (POAF) occurs in 20-50% of patients amid post-operative stay after Cardiac Surgery. We intend to determine whether colchicine therapy in patients undergoing cardiac surgery is a cost-effective strategy for prevention of POAF. To undertake cost utility analysis and calculate incremental cost utility ratio (ICUR) for colchicine therapy in these subgroup of patients. Methods and results Design: Decision tree model to calculate the ICUR comparing two treatment strategies in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. One wherein patients received colchicine along with usual care and second where they received placebo or just usual care. Cost utility analysis was undertaken using relevant data from the systematic review and meta-analysis of the available randomized controlled trials till June 2016 and mean cost calculations from validated available sources across various jurisdictions. Results: Colchicine treatment based on mean costs for life expectancy calculated at 10 years' post-surgery using recommended discounting rates of 3.5% was € 17544.80 cheaper per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The incremental cost is negative and the incremental effect (QALY) is positive (South East quadrant), Hence the intervention of colchicine treatment is unequivocally cost-effective, meaning it is dominant and achieves better outcomes at a lower cost. Conclusion: Our findings provide a benchmark for current and future analyses relating to effectiveness of colchicine on POAF events after cardiac surgery. Currently, there are few reports that provide cutting edge estimates of the higher expenses associated with POAF. Future analyses should likewise explore the impact of added costs from using pharmacologic efforts to prevent and treat POAF after cardiac surgery.

Reductions in Use of Colchicine after FDA Enforcement of Market Exclusivity in a Commercially Insured Population.

BACKGROUND: A brand-name version of colchicine (Colcrys) was introduced after its manufacturer conducted a clinical trial in acute gout patients, leading to higher prices for this drug. OBJECTIVE: We analyzed the impact of the new single-source colchicine product on prescribing and patient health spending as well as incidence rates of potentially dangerous concomitant use of clarithromycin and cyclosporine after formal FDA approval. DESIGN/PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of UnitedHealth-affiliated enrollees newly diagnosed with gout or FMF. MAIN MEASURES: Among gout and FMF patients separately, we assessed linear trends in colchicine prescriptions, prescription drug costs, and total health care costs from 2009 to September 2010 (market exclusivity announced) compared to January 2011 (market exclusivity enforced) through 2012. Next, we estimated trends in co-prescription within 15 days of clarithromycin, azithromycin (indicated on the Colcrys label for use in place of clarithromycin), and cyclosporine. KEY RESULTS: Among gout patients, before Colcrys' market exclusivity, the odds of receiving colchicine within 30 days of gout diagnosis increased 1.4 %/month (OR: 1.014, 95 % CI: 1.011-1.018). Following FDA action, the odds decreased by 0.5 %/month (OR: 0.995, 95 % CI: 0.992-0.999) (p < 0.001). Similarly, among FMF patients, odds of initiating colchicine changed from an increase of 2.8 %/month to a decrease by 7.6 %/month (p = 0.01). Patients receiving colchicine experienced increases in average monthly prescription drug costs ($418 vs. $651, p < 0.001) and health care costs ($3,406 vs. $3,534, p < 0.001). Incidence rates of colchicine/clarithromycin co-prescription before and after FDA action did not change, while co-prescription of colchicine/cyclosporine increased after introduction of Colcrys [-0.75 monthly change in patients (95 % CI: -1.07, -0.43) vs. 0.13 (95 % CI: -0.16, 0.42), p < 0.001]. CONCLUSIONS: The FDA's actions were associated with a reduction in colchicine initiation and an increase in patient spending. By contrast, we did not observe any association with improvements in avoidance of potentially dangerous co-prescriptions.

Economic impact of juvenile idiopathic arthritis and familial Mediterranean fever.

The aim of the study was to determine the economical impact of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) and familial Mediterranean fever (FMF) in Turkey. A total of 100 patients (69 F/31 M) with JIA and 100 with FMF (68 F/32 F) who were consecutively seen in the outpatient clinic of the pediatric rheumatology department at Cerrahpasa Medical School between August 2008 and January 2009 were studied. Cost data were collected through a questionnaire filled out by the parents. The mean age (JIA: 11 ± 5 years; FMF:12 ± 4 years) and mean disease duration (JIA:5 ± 3 years; FMF: 4 ± 3 years) of the patients were similar. JIA patients were assigned to 5 subtypes (polyarticular: n = 45, oligoarticular: n = 30, systemic onset: n = 13, psoriatic: n = 6, and enthesopathy-related JIA: n = 6). Forty-nine percent of the patients with JIA were treated with anti-TNF drugs and 61% with DMARDs. All patients with FMF were using colchicine. The total annual cost of JIA (3,994 ± 4,101) was considerably higher than that of FMF (162 ± 77) (P < 0.001). Medication fee was the major determinant of total costs in both diseases constituting 85% in JIA and 39% in FMF. Among the subtypes of JIA, total annual costs were the highest among patients with polyarticular type (6,045 ± 4,078). Medications especially anti-TNF drugs were the major contributor among all determinants of costs in JIA. The low costs of health care system and prominent changes in the health care policies for the last 5 years in Turkey might have played role in our findings.

A new perspective on the pharmacoeconomics of colchicine.

BACKGROUND: Gout is a common inflammatory arthritis that affects ∼4% of the US population. Most patients with gout are >50 years of age and have multiple comorbidities. Gout is caused by the deposition of monosodium urate crystals in joints secondary to hyperuricemia. Gout typically presents as an acute painful inflammation (flare) involving one or more joint. Left untreated it can progress into a more chronic polyarthritis. Acute gout flare treatment options include colchicine, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and corticosteroids. The safety and efficacy of colchicine, especially in the presence of comorbidity and potential contraindications, has only recently been systematically investigated. METHODS: Through the use of a systematic computer-based literature analysis, this pharmacoeconomic review evaluated costs, risks, and benefits of Colcrys (colchicine) compared with other treatments for gout in the US. RESULTS: Both colchicine and NSAIDs are historically associated with gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events (AEs). Colchicine has very low risk for AEs, even in patients with GI disorders; whereas, NSAIDS are contraindicated in patients with GI disorders, renal insufficiency, and heart failure. The monthly cost of treating 100 patients with Colcrys was $33,100 compared with $3000 for NSAIDs. However, hospitalization for GI complications (1.8%) and heart failure (1.9%) is common with NSAIDs and can increase the monthly cost of treating 100 patients with NSAIDs to $161,000, considering $15,000-20,000 per day of hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Considering high costs associated with treating patients with gout, it seems prudent to choose the treatment with greatest benefit, lowest cost, and least risk. Despite higher cost per dose, colchicine appears to be more cost effective for management of gout flares than NSAIDs.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and colchicine to prevent gout flare during early urate-lowering therapy: perspectives on alternative therapies and costs.

Published evidence in the literature, regulatory status, and relative costs of colchicine and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for prophylaxis of gouty flares during early urate-lowering therapy are reviewed.