Suppr超能文献

利那洛肽治疗美国成年便秘型肠易激综合征患者的经济学评价

Economic evaluation of linaclotide for the treatment of adult patients with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation in the United States.

作者信息

Huang Huan, Taylor Douglas C A, Carson Robyn T, Sarocco Phil, Friedman Mark, Munsell Michael, Blum Steven I, Menzin Joseph

机构信息

Boston Health Economics, Inc. , Waltham, MA , USA.

出版信息

J Med Econ. 2015 Apr;18(4):283-94. doi: 10.3111/13696998.2014.979291.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To use techniques of decision-analytic modeling to evaluate the effectiveness and costs of linaclotide vs lubiprostone in the treatment of adult patients with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C).

METHODS

Using model inputs derived from published literature, linaclotide Phase III trial data and a physician survey, a decision-tree model was constructed. Response to therapy was defined as (1) a ≥ 14-point increase from baseline in IBS-Quality-of-Life (IBS-QoL) questionnaire overall score at week 12 or (2) one of the top two responses (moderately/significantly relieved) on a 7-point IBS symptom relief question in ≥ 2 of 3 months. Patients who do not respond to therapy are assumed to fail therapy and accrue costs associated with a treatment failure. Model time horizon is aligned with clinical trial duration of 12 weeks. Model outputs include number of responders, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and total costs (including direct and indirect). Both one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Treatment for IBS-C with linaclotide produced more responders than lubiprostone for both response definitions (19.3% vs 13.0% and 61.8% vs 57.2% for IBS-QoL and symptom relief, respectively), lower per-patient costs ($803 vs $911 and $977 vs $1056), and higher QALYs (0.1921 vs 0.1917 and 0.1909 vs 0.1894) over the 12-week time horizon. Results were similar for most one-way sensitivity analyses. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the majority of simulations resulted in linaclotide having higher treatment response rates and lower per-patient costs.

LIMITATIONS

There are no available head-to-head trials that compare linaclotide with lubiprostone; therefore, placebo-adjusted estimates of relative efficacy were derived for model inputs. The time horizon for this model is relatively short, as it was limited to the duration of available clinical trial data.

CONCLUSIONS

Linaclotide was found to be a less costly option vs lubiprostone for the treatment of adult patients with IBS-C.

摘要

目的

运用决策分析建模技术评估利那洛肽与鲁比前列酮治疗成人便秘型肠易激综合征(IBS-C)的有效性和成本。

方法

利用从已发表文献、利那洛肽III期试验数据及医生调查中获取的模型输入数据,构建决策树模型。治疗反应定义为:(1)在第12周时,肠易激综合征生活质量(IBS-QoL)问卷总分较基线增加≥14分;或(2)在3个月中的≥2个月里,7分制IBS症状缓解问题的前两个反应(中度/显著缓解)之一。假设对治疗无反应的患者治疗失败,并产生与治疗失败相关的成本。模型时间范围与12周的临床试验持续时间一致。模型输出包括反应者数量、质量调整生命年(QALY)和总成本(包括直接成本和间接成本)。进行了单因素和概率敏感性分析。

结果

对于两种反应定义,利那洛肽治疗IBS-C产生的反应者均多于鲁比前列酮(IBS-QoL和症状缓解分别为19.3%对13.0%和61.8%对57.2%),在12周时间范围内,每位患者的成本更低(803美元对911美元和977美元对1056美元),QALY更高(0.1921对0.1917和0.1909对0.1894)。大多数单因素敏感性分析结果相似。在概率敏感性分析中,大多数模拟结果显示利那洛肽具有更高的治疗反应率和更低的每位患者成本。

局限性

没有将利那洛肽与鲁比前列酮进行比较的直接头对头试验;因此,模型输入数据采用了安慰剂调整后的相对疗效估计值。该模型的时间范围相对较短,因为它仅限于现有临床试验数据的持续时间。

结论

对于治疗成人IBS-C患者,发现利那洛肽相对于鲁比前列酮是成本更低的选择。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验