a Evidence Synthesis, Modeling & Communication, Evidera , San Francisco , CA , USA.
b Patient & Health Impact, Pfizer, Inc , New York , NY , USA.
J Med Econ. 2019 Sep;22(9):859-868. doi: 10.1080/13696998.2019.1609481. Epub 2019 May 15.
To evaluate the cost differences between a treatment strategy including tofacitinib (TOFA) vs treatment strategies including adalimumab (ADA), golimumab (GOL), infliximab (IFX), and vedolizumab (VEDO) among all patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC) (further stratified by patients naïve/exposed to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors [TNFis]). An Excel-based decision-analytic model was developed to evaluate costs from the perspective of a third-party US payer over 2 years. Efficacy and safety parameters were taken from prescribing information and published trials. All patients started induction therapy on the first treatment in the strategy and continued if efficacy criteria were met and no major adverse event occurred (in which cases they proceeded to the next treatment in the strategy). The cost per member per month (PMPM) of the TOFA->IFX->VEDO->GOL strategy ($1.11) was lower than that of the ADA->IFX->VEDO->GOL strategy ($1.34; Δ = $-0.23) among the TNFi-naïve population ( = 204 patients out of a plan of one million members). Similarly, the use of TOFA before ADA (i.e. TOFA->ADA->IFX-> VEDO) was also associated with lower PMPM costs than the use of ADA before TOFA (i.e. ADA->TOFA->IFX->VEDO): $1.15 vs $1.25 (Δ = $-0.10). Similar, and often larger, differences were observed in both the overall moderate-to-severe population and the TNFi-exposed population. Sensitivity analyses resulted in the same conclusions. Our model relied on efficacy data from prescribing information and published trials, which were not head-to-head and slightly differed with respect to methods. Additionally, our model used representative minor and major ADRs (and the associated costs) to represent toxicity management, which was a simplifying assumption. This analysis, the first of its kind to evaluate TOFA vis-à-vis other advanced therapies in the US, suggests the early use of TOFA among both TNFi-naïve and TNFi-failure patients results in lower PMPM costs compared with other treatment alternatives.
评估包括托法替尼(TOFA)与阿达木单抗(ADA)、戈利木单抗(GOL)、英夫利昔单抗(IFX)和维得利珠单抗(VEDO)在内的治疗策略在所有中重度溃疡性结肠炎(UC)患者中的成本差异(进一步按 TNF 抑制剂(TNFis)初治/暴露患者分层)。 开发了一个基于 Excel 的决策分析模型,从美国第三方支付者的角度评估 2 年内的成本。疗效和安全性参数取自处方信息和已发表的试验。所有患者在策略中的第一种治疗方法开始诱导治疗,如果疗效标准得到满足且未发生重大不良事件(在这种情况下,他们继续进行策略中的下一种治疗方法)。 在 TNFis 初治人群中(计划中每百万成员有 204 名患者),TOFA->IFX->VEDO->GOL 策略的每位成员每月成本(PMPM)为 1.11 美元,低于 ADA->IFX->VEDO->GOL 策略的 1.34 美元(差异= -0.23 美元)。同样,在 ADA 之前使用 TOFA(即 TOFA->ADA->IFX->VEDO)也与在 ADA 之前使用 TOFA(即 ADA->TOFA->IFX->VEDO)相关联,与较低的 PMPM 成本相关:1.15 美元对 1.25 美元(差异= -0.10 美元)。在所有中重度人群和 TNFis 暴露人群中也观察到了类似的,并且通常更大的差异。敏感性分析得出了相同的结论。 我们的模型依赖于处方信息和已发表试验中的疗效数据,这些数据不是头对头的,并且在方法上略有不同。此外,我们的模型使用具有代表性的轻微和严重 ADR(及其相关成本)来代表毒性管理,这是一个简化的假设。 这项分析是在美国首次评估 TOFA 与其他先进疗法的关系,表明在 TNFis 初治和 TNFis 失败的患者中早期使用 TOFA 可降低与其他治疗选择相关的 PMPM 成本。