RESUMO
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.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Apixaban, dabigatran and rivaroxaban are three new direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) used in the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in Spain. AIM: To assess the relative cost-utility of the three DOACs compared with vitamin K antagonists. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A Markov model with 3-month cycles was used to simulate NVAF patients starting with treatment and followed up for their lifetime from the perspective of the National Health System. The model included 36 health states including treatment combinations, disability and events history and considered a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 NVAF patients. Relative efficacy was calculated from a formal indirect treatment comparison using data from the pivotal trials of each DOAC. RESULTS: Dabigatran was associated with the highest number of quality-adjusted life years (QALY) (8.40 QALY), followed by apixaban (8.33 QALY), rivaroxaban (8.15 QALY) and acenocoumarol (8.03 QALY). Patients taking acenocoumarol had the lowest total costs (22,230), followed by dabigatran (24,564), apixaban (24,655) and rivaroxaban (25,900). Incremental cost-utility ratios compared to vitamin K antagonists, were 6,397, 8,039 and 29,957/QALY for dabigatran, apixaban and rivaroxaban, respectively. If compared together, dabigatran dominated apixaban and rivaroxaban. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the baseline case. CONCLUSIONS: All three direct anticoagulants are cost-effective against acenocoumarol. Dabigatran is economically dominant over rivaroxaban and apixaban in the Spanish setting, as it is more effective and cheaper.
TITLE: Comparacion del coste-utilidad de los anticoagulantes orales de accion directa en la prevencion de ictus en la fibrilacion auricular no valvular en España.Introduccion. El apixaban, el dabigatran y el rivaroxaban son tres anticoagulantes orales de accion directa (ACOD) indicados para la prevencion del ictus y la embolia sistemica en pacientes con fibrilacion auricular no valvular (FANV) en España. Objetivo. Comparar el coste-utilidad de los tres ACOD frente a los antivitamina K. Pacientes y metodos. Se utilizo un modelo Markov con ciclos trimestrales para simular pacientes con FANV desde que inician su tratamiento hasta el resto de su vida desde la perspectiva del Sistema Nacional de Salud. El modelo incorporo 36 estados de salud, incluyendo combinaciones de tratamientos, discapacidad y antecedentes de eventos, y considero una cohorte hipotetica de 10.000 pacientes con FANV. La eficacia relativa se calculo a partir de una comparacion indirecta formal de los tratamientos segun los datos de los ensayos pivotales de cada ACOD. Resultados. El dabigatran se asocio al valor maximo de años de vida ajustados por calidad (AVAC) (8,40 AVAC), seguido del apixaban (8,33 AVAC), el rivaroxaban (8,15 AVAC) y el acenocumarol (8,03 AVAC). Los costes totales fueron menores con el acenocumarol (22.230 ), seguido del dabigatran (24.564 ), el apixaban (24.655 ) y el rivaroxaban (25.900 ). La ratio coste-utilidad incremental frente a los antivitamina K fue de 6.397, 8.039 y 29.957 /AVAC para el dabigatran, el apixaban y el rivaroxaban, respectivamente. Comparados entre ellos, el dabigatran domino al apixaban y al rivaroxaban. Los analisis de sensibilidad confirmaron la robustez del caso base. Conclusiones. Los tres ACOD son coste-efectivos frente al acenocumarol. El dabigatran es economicamente dominante frente al rivaroxaban y al apixaban en España, al ser mas efectivo y menos costoso.