RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Nintedanib (Ofev®) and pirfenidone (Esbriet®) are recommended by international guidelines as treatment options for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost-effectiveness of nintedanib with that of pirfenidone for the treatment of IPF from a Belgian healthcare payer perspective. METHODS: The economic analysis used a Markov model that calculated outcomes over patient lifetime. Overall survival was assumed to be the same for the two comparators. Data from a network meta-analysis were used for loss of lung function, acute exacerbation events, safety and treatment discontinuation (for any reason). The health-state utility estimates in the model were calculated from EQ-5D scores collected in nintedanib studies. The assumed resource use for background care was also based on patient-level data that were categorised to fit the health states in the model and synthesised with costs and tariffs from Belgian national databases. RESULTS: Treatment with nintedanib resulted in an estimated total cost of 102,315, which was less than the total cost of treatment with pirfenidone (113,313). Given the similarities in the survival and progression outcomes obtained with nintedanib and pirfenidone, the model predicted near equivalence in total QALYs (3.353 QALYs for the nintedanib arm and 3.318 for the pirfenidone arm). Results were largely driven by model assumptions underlying mortality, acute exacerbations and treatment discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: After performing a synthesis of the most recently published evidence for IPF patients and assuming a Belgian healthcare payer perspective, we found nintedanib to be more cost-saving than pirfenidone.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend nintedanib (OFEV®) as an option for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of nintedanib versus pirfenidone, N-acetylcysteine and best supportive care (BSC) for the treatment of IPF from a UK payer's perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was designed to capture the changes in the condition of adults with IPF. Efficacy outcomes included mortality, lung function decline and acute exacerbations. Treatment safety (serious adverse events) and tolerability (overall discontinuation) were also considered. The baseline risk of these events was derived from patient-level data from the placebo arms of nintedanib clinical trials (TOMORROW, INPULSIS-1, INPULSIS-2). A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to estimate the relative effectiveness of the comparator treatments. Quality of life and healthcare resource use data from the clinical trials were also incorporated in the economic model. RESULTS: Nintedanib showed statistically significant differences against placebo on acute exacerbation events avoided and lung function decline. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the results were split between two treatments with relative low costs and modest effectiveness (BSC and N-acetylcysteine) and two that showed improved effectiveness (lung function) and higher costs (nintedanib and pirfenidone). All comparators were assumed to have similar projected survival and the difference in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) was driven by the acute exacerbations and lung function estimates. In the base-case deterministic pairwise comparison with pirfenidone, nintedanib was found to have fewer acute exacerbations and resulted in less costs and more QALYs gained. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with BSC (placebo), nintedanib and pirfenidone were the only treatments to show statistical significance in the efficacy parameters. We found substantial uncertainty in the overall cost-effectiveness results between nintedanib and pirfenidone. N-Acetylcysteine was largely similar to BSC but with a worse survival profile. INPULSIS-1 and INPULSIS-2 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01335464 and NCT01335477.