OBJECTIVES: The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) health economic model for assessing the cost-effectiveness of celecoxib plus a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) compared to diclofenac plus PPI in the treatment of osteoarthritis has been updated using new adverse event (AE) risks from the CONDOR trial. In light of this new information, this study aimed to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of celecoxib plus PPI compared to diclofenac plus PPI.
METHODS: NICE developed a health economic model as part of their 2008 multiple technology assessment of treatments for osteoarthritis. The model was adapted for this study to update the relative risks of adverse events, using data from the CONDOR trial.
RESULTS: Using the AE data from the CLASS trial alone, celecoxib plus PPI has an ICER of £9538 per QALY when compared to diclofenac plus PPI. When the AE data from CONDOR alone is used, this ICER decreases to £4773 per QALY. Using the pooled data from both trials, celecoxib plus PPI has an ICER of £9377 per QALY compared to diclofenac plus PPI.
DISCUSSION: The results suggest that when new AE risks are used, celecoxib plus PPI remains a cost-effective treatment for OA when compared to diclofenac plus PPI. However, this analysis is limited by the short time horizon, and additional AEs that have not been considered.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the cost effectiveness of cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX 2) selective inhibitors and traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and the addition of proton pump inhibitors to these treatments, for people with osteoarthritis.
DESIGN: An economic evaluation using a Markov model and data from a systematic review was conducted. Estimates of cardiovascular and gastrointestinal adverse events were based on data from three large randomised controlled trials, and observational data were used for sensitivity analyses. Efficacy benefits from treatment were estimated from a meta-analysis of trials reporting total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) osteoarthritis index score. Other model inputs were obtained from the relevant literature. The model was run for a hypothetical population of people with osteoarthritis. Subgroup analyses were conducted for people at high risk of gastrointestinal or cardiovascular adverse events. Comparators Licensed COX 2 selective inhibitors (celecoxib and etoricoxib) and traditional NSAIDs (diclofenac, ibuprofen, and naproxen) for which suitable data were available were compared. Paracetamol was also included, as was the possibility of adding a proton pump inhibitor (omeprazole) to each treatment.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measure was cost effectiveness, which was based on quality adjusted life years gained. Quality adjusted life year scores were calculated from pooled estimates of efficacy and major adverse events (that is, dyspepsia; symptomatic ulcer; complicated gastrointestinal perforation, ulcer, or bleed; myocardial infarction; stroke; and heart failure).
RESULTS: Addition of a proton pump inhibitor to both COX 2 selective inhibitors and traditional NSAIDs was highly cost effective for all patient groups considered (incremental cost effectiveness ratio less than pound1000 (euro1175, $1650)). This finding was robust across a wide range of effectiveness estimates if the cheapest proton pump inhibitor was used. In our base case analysis, adding a proton pump inhibitor to a COX 2 selective inhibitor (used at the lowest licensed dose) was a cost effective option, even for patients at low risk of gastrointestinal adverse events (incremental cost effectiveness ratio approximately pound10 000). Uncertainties around relative adverse event rates meant relative cost effectiveness for individual COX 2 selective inhibitors and traditional NSAIDs was difficult to determine.
CONCLUSIONS: Prescribing a proton pump inhibitor for people with osteoarthritis who are taking a traditional NSAID or COX 2 selective inhibitor is cost effective. The cost effectiveness analysis was sensitive to adverse event data and the specific choice of COX 2 selective inhibitor or NSAID agent should, therefore, take into account individual cardiovascular and gastrointestinal risks.
BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the main causes of disability worldwide, especially in persons >55 years of age. Currently, controversy remains about the best therapeutic alternative for this disease when evaluated from a cost-effectiveness viewpoint. For Social Security Institutions in developing countries, it is very important to assess what drugs may decrease the subsequent use of medical care resources, considering their adverse events that are known to have a significant increase in medical care costs of patients with OA. Three treatment alternatives were compared: celecoxib (200 mg twice daily), non-selective NSAIDs (naproxen, 500 mg twice daily; diclofenac, 100 mg twice daily; and piroxicam, 20 mg/day) and acetaminophen, 1000 mg twice daily. The aim of this study was to identify the most cost-effective first-choice pharmacological treatment for the control of joint pain secondary to OA in patients treated at the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS).
METHODS: A cost-effectiveness assessment was carried out. A systematic review of the literature was performed to obtain transition probabilities. In order to evaluate analysis robustness, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Estimations were done for a 6-month period.
RESULTS: Treatment demonstrating the best cost-effectiveness results [lowest cost-effectiveness ratio $17.5 pesos/patient ($1.75 USD)] was celecoxib. According to the one-way sensitivity analysis, celecoxib would need to markedly decrease its effectiveness in order for it to not be the optimal treatment option. In the probabilistic analysis, both in the construction of the acceptability curves and in the estimation of net economic benefits, the most cost-effective option was celecoxib.
CONCLUSION: From a Mexican institutional perspective and probably in other Social Security Institutions in similar developing countries, the most cost-effective option for treatment of knee and/or hip OA would be celecoxib.
OBJECTIVE: Advice to use topical or oral NSAIDs is equally effective for the treatment of knee pain in older people. The ingredient cost of topical preparations is typically more than oral preparations, but could save costs because they have fewer adverse effects. A cost-utility study is needed to decide on their comparative cost effectiveness.
METHODS: We recruited 585 people aged >or=50 yrs with knee pain; 282 participated in a randomized controlled trial and 303 in a patient preference study from 26 MRC General Practice Research Framework practices in the UK. They received advice to preferentially use topical or oral NSAIDs for knee pain. We calculated the comparative cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) from both a National Health Service (NHS) and a societal perspective over 12 and 24 months.
RESULTS: Compared with the topical route, oral NSAIDs cost the NHS pound191 and pound72 more over 1 yr in the randomized trial and preference study, respectively. The cost per QALY, from an NHS perspective, was in the range of pound9000- pound12000 in the randomized trial. In the preference study, it was pound2564 over 1 yr, but over 2 yrs the oral route was dominant.
CONCLUSIONS: Our cost-effectiveness analysis supports the use of oral NSAIDs in selected patients. Nevertheless, deciding to recommend oral NSAIDs in preference to topical NSAIDs could have a substantial impact on NHS costs because of the uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness estimate.
OBJECTIVE: The Osmotic controlled-Release Oral delivery System (OROS) hydromorphone ensures continuous release of hydromorphone over 24 hours. It is anticipated that this will facilitate optimal pain relief, improve quality of sleep and compliance. This simulation compared managing chronic osteoarthritis pain with once-daily OROS hydromorphone with an equianalgesic dose of extended-release (ER) oxycodone administered two or three times a day.
METHODS: This discrete event simulation follows patients for a year after initiating opioid treatment. Pairs of identical patients are created; one receives OROS hydromorphone the other ER oxycodone; undergo dose adjustments and after titration can be dissatisfied or satisfied, suffer adverse events, pain recurrence, or discontinue the opioid. Each is assigned an initial sleep problems score, and an improved score from a treatment dependent distribution at the end of titration; these are translated to a utility value. Utilities are assigned pre-treatment, updated until the patient reaches the optimal dose or is non-compliant or dissatisfied. The OROS hydromorphone and ER oxycodone doses are converted to equianalgesic morphine doses using the following ratios: hydromorphone to morphine ratio; 1:5, oxycodone to morphine ratio; 1:2. Sensitivity analyses explored uncertainty in the conversion ratios and other key parameters. Direct medical costs are in 2005 euros.
RESULTS: Over 1 year on a mean daily morphine-equivalent dose of 90 mg, 14% were estimated to be dissatisfied with each opioid. OROS hydromorphone was predicted to yield 0.017 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)/patient for a small additional annual cost (E141/patient), yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of E8343/QALY gained. Changing the assumed conversion ratio for oxycodone:morphine to 1:1.5 led to lower net costs of E68 per patient, E3979/QALY, and for hydromorphone to 1:7.5 to savings.
CONCLUSION: Based on these analyses, OROS hydromorphone is expected to yield health benefits at reasonable cost in Germany.
OBJECTIVE: To examine, in routine practice, the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of oxycodone (OxyContin) compared with standard therapy for osteoarthritis pain.
STUDY DESIGN: Open-label active-controlled randomized naturalistic 4-month study of oxycodone vs a combination of oxycodone-acetaminophen (Percocet).
METHODS: Outcomes and health resource utilization data were collected by telephone interview. Effectiveness was measured among 485 patients as the proportion having at least 20% improvement from baseline in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain score. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated from the Health Utilities Index 3 score. Cost-effectiveness was measured as cost per patient improved and the QALYs gained, using generic oxycodone-acetaminophen in the base case for the healthcare and societal perspectives. Uncertainty was evaluated using multiple 1-way sensitivity analyses and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.
RESULTS: Improvement occurred in 62.2% of patients with oxycodone and in 45.9% of patients with oxycodone-acetaminophen (P < .001). After adjustment for baseline differences, 0.0105 QALYs were gained with oxycodone compared with oxycodone-acetaminophen (P = .17). The mean societal costs per patient during 4 months were 7379 US dollars and 7528 US dollars for oxycodone and oxycodone-acetaminophen, respectively (P = .33). Oxycodone was more effective and less costly than oxycodone-acetaminophen based on the societal perspective (including costs associated with time lost). Based on the healthcare perspective (excluding costs associated with time lost), the cost-effectiveness of oxycodone was 4883 US dollars per patient improved and 75,810 US dollars per QALY gained. The base-case results were robust.
CONCLUSIONS: From the societal perspective, oxycodone was more effective and less costly than oxycodone-acetaminophen. From the healthcare perspective, oxycodone (compared with generic oxycodone-acetaminophen) fell within the acceptable range of cost-effectiveness between 50,000 US dollars and 100,000 US dollars per QALY gained.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 3 treatment strategies for osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee: naproxen, celecoxib, and hyaluronan.
METHODS: We developed a decision model to estimate the costs and effectiveness of 3 treatment strategies: 250 mg naproxen 3 times daily for 26 weeks, 100 mg celecoxib twice daily for 26 weeks, and 25 mg hyaluronan by intraarticular injection once per week for 5 weeks followed by conventional treatment for 21 weeks. The probabilities and utility data were obtained by surveying the literature and consulting experts. Cost data were obtained from insurance reimbursement data of National Taiwan University Hospital and were converted to 2002 US dollars. The timeframe of the decision tree was 26 weeks. Outcomes were expressed in aggregated costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity analyses were performed on most variables.
RESULTS: The expected total costs for the naproxen, celecoxib, and hyaluronan strategies were US$498.98, US$547.80, and US$678.00, respectively. The ICER of the celecoxib strategy compared with the naproxen strategy was US$21,226 per QALY gained. The ICER of the hyaluronan strategy versus the celecoxib strategy was US$42,000 per QALY gained. The ICER of the hyaluronan strategy decreased to about US$25,000 per QALY gained if the weekly treatment cost of hyaluronan was decreased to US$31.
CONCLUSION: Celecoxib treatment results in a reasonable cost-effectiveness ratio for patients with OA of the knee. Hyaluronan treatment, however, may not be an economically attractive choice under the current healthcare scenario in Taiwan.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to conduct an economic evaluation of rofecoxib and celecoxib compared with high-dose acetaminophen or ibuprofen with and without misoprostol for patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA).
METHODS: A decision analysis model was designed over 6 months using two measures of effectiveness: 1) number of upper gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events averted; and 2) number of patients who achieved perceptible pain relief. Separate analyses were conducted for all patients and for those who did not respond to acetaminophen. Outcome probabilities were obtained from a comprehensive review of randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Costs were derived from actual resource utilization of OA patients.
RESULTS: In terms of averting GI events, acetaminophen dominates the other options for an average risk patient population. For patients who did not respond to acetaminophen, rofecoxib had the lowest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per GI event avoided (32,000 US dollars) relative to ibuprofen. In terms of pain control, ibuprofen had an ICER of 610.77 US dollars per additional patient achieving minimal perceptible clinical improvement (MPCI) relative to acetaminophen, while rofecoxib had an ICER of 12,000 US dollars relative to ibuprofen. For patients who did not respond to acetaminophen and who are at high risk of developing an adverse GI event, rofecoxib dominates ibuprofen as the preferred alternative for both measures of effectiveness. One-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses established that these results were generally robust.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that for average-risk knee OA patients, acetaminophen dominates the other therapies in terms of cost per GI event averted. In terms of pain relief, cost-effectiveness acceptability curves indicate that if one values pain relief below 275 US dollars per patient achieving MPCI, acetaminophen is the therapy most likely to be optimal; between 275 US dollars and 14,150 US dollars, ibuprofen is most likely to be optimal; and above 14,150 US dollars, rofecoxib is most likely to be optimal.
The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) health economic model for assessing the cost-effectiveness of celecoxib plus a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) compared to diclofenac plus PPI in the treatment of osteoarthritis has been updated using new adverse event (AE) risks from the CONDOR trial. In light of this new information, this study aimed to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of celecoxib plus PPI compared to diclofenac plus PPI.
METHODS:
NICE developed a health economic model as part of their 2008 multiple technology assessment of treatments for osteoarthritis. The model was adapted for this study to update the relative risks of adverse events, using data from the CONDOR trial.
RESULTS:
Using the AE data from the CLASS trial alone, celecoxib plus PPI has an ICER of £9538 per QALY when compared to diclofenac plus PPI. When the AE data from CONDOR alone is used, this ICER decreases to £4773 per QALY. Using the pooled data from both trials, celecoxib plus PPI has an ICER of £9377 per QALY compared to diclofenac plus PPI.
DISCUSSION:
The results suggest that when new AE risks are used, celecoxib plus PPI remains a cost-effective treatment for OA when compared to diclofenac plus PPI. However, this analysis is limited by the short time horizon, and additional AEs that have not been considered.
