Table II.
Cost-effectiveness of biologicals for the treatment of ulcerative colitis
| Reference | Results – original values | ICER – 2015 euro values |
|---|---|---|
| Chaudhary, 2013 [18] | Total costs: IFX = 17,062, CSP = 14,784, S = 13,979 QALY: IFX = 0.80, CSP = 0.70, S = 0.58 ICER: IFX vs. CSP = 24,277, IFX vs. S = 14,639 Conclusion: IFX is cost-effective compared with CSP and S |
IFX vs. CSP = 26,117 IFX vs. S = 15,748 |
| Punekar, 2010 [19] | Total costs: S = 17,067, CSP = 18,122, SC = 18,524, IFX = 19,847 QALY: S = 0.58, CSP = 0.70, SC = 0.68, IFX = 0.80 ICER: IFX vs. CSP = 19,545 Conclusion: IFX is cost-effective compared with CSP, S, SC |
IFX vs. CSP = 24,171 |
| Stawowczyk, 2016 [21] | Total costs, public payer: ADA = 20,598, SC = 9950 Total costs, social: ADA = 93,765, SC = 83,770 QALY: ADA = 15.204, SC = 15.064 ICER public payer: ADA vs. SC = 76,120 ICER social: ADA vs. SC = 71,457 Conclusion: ADA is not cost-effective compared with SC |
Public payer perspective: ADA vs. SC = 76,120 Social perspective: ADA vs. SC = 71,457 |
| Stawowczyk, 2016 [22] | Total costs, public payer: GOL = 93,321, SC = 45,502 Total costs, social: GOL = 302,848, SC = 257,092 QALY: GOL = 19.241, SC = 19.118 ICER public payer GOL vs. SC = 391,252 ICER social: GOL vs. SC = 374,377 Conclusion: GOL is not cost-effective compared with SC |
Public payer perspective: GOL vs. SC = 90,757 Social perspective: GOL vs. SC = 86,842 |
| Stawowczyk, 2016 [23] | Total costs: IFX = 99,522, SC = 29,642 QALY: IFX = 14.296, SC = 14.123 ICER: IFX vs. SC = 402,420 Conclusion: IFX is not cost-effective compared with SC |
IFX vs. SC = 93,347 |
| Toor, 2015 [24] | Cost per 1 year additional remission / response: GOL 50 vs. SC = 1048/770, GOL 100 vs. SC = 935/701, IFX vs. SC = 1975/1311, ADA vs. SC = 7,430/2361, IFX vs. GOL 100 = 14,659/4753, ADA vs. GOL 100 = −3324/–4019 Conclusions: GOL 100 and GOL 50 have the lowest cost of additional 1 year of remission and response; IFX has the highest efficacy, but also high costs, ADA produced the highest cost/remission and response |
Cost per 1 year additional remission/response: GOL 50 vs. SC = 758/557 GOL 100 vs. SC = 677/507 IFX vs. SC = 1429/949 ADA vs. SC = 5377/1709 IFX vs. GOL 100 = 10,609/3440 ADA vs. GOL 100 = −2406/–2909 |
| Tsai, 2008 [25] | Responders only: Total costs: IFX = 66,460, SC = 45,798 QALY: IFX = 4.591, SC = 3.838 ICER: IFX vs. SC = 27,424 Remission only: Total costs: IFX = 53,874, SC = 46,259 QALY: IFX = 4.154, SC = 3.767 ICER: IFX vs. SC = 19,696 Conclusion: IFX is cost-effective compared with SC |
Responders only: IFX vs. SC = 40,065 Remission only: IFX vs. SC = 28,774 |
| Ung, 2014 [26] | ICER: IFX vs. SC = 79,000 (5 years), 64,000 (10 years) Conclusion: IFX is cost-effective compared with SC |
IFX vs. SC = 73,085 (5 years), 59,208 (10 years) |
| Xie, 2009 [27] | ICER: IFX ADA vs. SC = 358,088, IFX IFX vs. SC = 575,540 Conclusion: Anti-TNF-α therapies are not cost-effective compared with SC |
IFX ADA vs. SC = 280,472 IFX IFX vs. SC = 450,791 |
| Yokomizo, 2016 [20] | Cost per MH achieved: IFX 5 = 99,171, IFX 10 = 123,653, ADA = 316,378, VED = 301,969 Cost per 1 additional MH achieved: IFX 5 vs. IFX 10 = 1,243,310, IFX 5 vs. ADA – dominated, IFX 5 vs. VED – dominated Conclusions: IFX is the most cost-effective treatment option |
Cost per 1 additional MH achieved: IFX 5 vs. IFX 10 = 1,133,201 IFX 5 vs. ADA – dominated IFX 5 vs. VED – dominated |
IFX – infliximab, ADA – adalimumab, GOL – golimumab, GOL 50 – golimumab 50 mg, GOL 100 – golimumab 100 mg, VED – vedolizumab, SC – standard/usual care/conventional treatment, S – surgery, CSP – cyclosporine, MH – mucosal healing, ICER – incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, QALY – quality adjusted life years.