Cost-utility of celecoxib use in different treatment strategies for osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis from the Quebec healthcare system perspective

An economic evaluation of knee osteoarthritis treatments in Thailand

Objective: The objective of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different knee OA care sequences compared to standard treatment reimbursed by the major health insurance payer in Thailand.

Method: We used decision analytical modeling to evaluate the effect of either adding etoricoxib or crystalline glucosamine sulfate compared to standard treatment from a societal perspective over patients’ lifetimes. Data were analyzed based on efficacy, whereas adverse events were considered as a substate. Model input data were retrieved from relevant published literature and the Standard Cost Lists for Health Technology Assessment, Thailand. All health outcomes were measured in a unit of quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was applied to examine the costs and QALYs. Sensitivity analysis was performed to investigate the robustness of the model.

Result: The results demonstrated that adding crystalline glucosamine sulfate (before diclofenac plus proton pump inhibitors, PPI) into the standard care sequence was a dominant strategy compared to the standard care sequence. Adding etoricoxib alone or including crystalline glucosamine sulfate (after diclofenac plus PPI) was dominated by adding crystalline glucosamine sulfate (before diclofenac plus PPI), whereas in a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold in Thailand, adding of both crystalline glucosamine sulfate (before diclofenac plus PPI) and etoricoxib were cost-effective when compared to adding crystalline glucosamine sulfate alone with ICER of 125,547 Thai baht/QALY (3,472 US dollars/QALY).

Conclusion: The addition of crystalline glucosamine sulfate and etoricoxib into standard knee OA treatment were cost-effective at the WTP threshold in Thailand. In addition, early initiation of crystalline glucosamine sulfate would be less costly and more effective than delayed treatment or the use of standard treatment alone.

Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacological Management for Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a highly prevalent, disabling disease requiring chronic management that is associated with an enormous individual and societal burden. This systematic review provides a global cost-effectiveness evaluation of pharmacological therapy for the management of OA.

METHODS

Following Center for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) guidance, a literature search strategy was undertaken using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, and National Health Service Economic Evaluation database (NHS EED) to identify original articles containing cost-effectiveness evaluation of OA pharmacological treatment published before 4 November 2021. Risk of bias was assessed by two independent reviewers using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist for economic evaluations. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument was used to assess the reporting quality of included articles.

RESULTS

Database searches identified 43 cost-effectiveness analysis studies (CEAs) on pharmacological management of OA that were conducted in 18 countries and four continents, with one study containing multiple continents. A total of four classes of drugs were assessed, including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioid analgesics, symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis (SYSADOAs), and intra-articular (IA) injections. The methodological approaches of these studies showed substantial heterogeneity. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) were (in 2021 US dollars) US$44.40 to US$307,013.56 for NSAIDS, US$11,984.84 to US$128,028.74 for opioids, US$10,930.17 to US$27,799.73 for SYSADOAs, and US$258.36 to US$58,447.97 for IA injections in different continents. The key drivers of cost effectiveness included medical resources, productivity, relative risks, and selected comparators.

CONCLUSION

This review showed substantial heterogeneity among studies, ranging from a finding of dominance to very high ICERs, but most studies found interventions to be cost effective based on specific ICER thresholds. Important challenges in the analysis were related to the standardization and methodological quality of studies, as well as the presentation of results.

Systematic Review of the Evolution of Health-Economic Evaluation Models of Osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

To comprehensively synthesize the evolution of health-economic evaluation models (HEEMs) of all osteoarthritis (OA) interventions, including preventions, core treatments, adjunct nonpharmacologic interventions, pharmacologic interventions, and surgical treatments.

METHODS

The literature was searched within health-economic/biomedical databases. Data extracted included OA type, population characteristics, model setting/type/events, study perspective, and comparators; the reporting quality of the studies was also assessed. The review protocol was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42018092937).

RESULTS

Eighty-eight studies were included. Pharmacologic and surgical interventions were the focus in 51% and 44% of studies, respectively. Twenty-four studies adopted a societal perspective (with increasing popularity after 2013), but most (63%) did not include indirect costs. Quality-adjusted life years was the most popular outcome measure since 2008. Markov models were used by 62% of studies, with increasing popularity since 2008. Until 2010, most studies used short-to-medium time horizons; subsequently, a lifetime horizon became popular. A total of 86% of studies reported discount rates (predominantly between 3% and 5%). Studies published after 2002 had a better coverage of OA-related adverse events (AEs). Reporting quality significantly improved after 2001.

CONCLUSION

OA HEEMs have evolved and improved substantially over time, with the focus shifting from short-to-medium-term pharmacologic decision-tree models to surgical-focused lifetime Markov models. Indirect costs of OA are frequently not considered, despite using a societal perspective. There was a lack of reporting sensitivity of model outcome to input parameters, including discount rate, OA definition, and population parameters. While the coverage of OA-related AEs has improved over time, it is still not comprehensive.

Modeling rheumatoid arthritis using different techniques - a review of model construction and results

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, inflammatory disease with severe effects on the functional ability of patients. Due to the prevalence of 0.5 to 1.0 percent in western countries, new treatment options are a major concern for decision makers with regard to their budget impact. In this context, cost-effectiveness analyses are a helpful tool to evaluate new treatment options for reimbursement schemes.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze and compare decision analytic modeling techniques and to explore their use in RA with regard to their advantages and shortcomings.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted in PubMED and 58 studies reporting health economics decision models were analyzed with regard to the modeling technique used.

RESULTS

From the 58 reviewed publications, we found 13 reporting decision tree-analysis, 25 (cohort) Markov models, 13 publications on individual sampling methods (ISM) and seven discrete event simulations (DES). Thereby 26 studies were identified as presenting independently developed models and 32 models as adoptions. The modeling techniques used were found to differ in their complexity and in the number of treatment options compared. Methodological features are presented in the article and a comprehensive overview of the cost-effectiveness estimates is given in Additional files 1 and 2.

DISCUSSION

When compared to the other modeling techniques, ISM and DES have advantages in the coverage of patient heterogeneity and, additionally, DES is capable to model more complex treatment sequences and competing risks in RA-patients. Nevertheless, the availability of sufficient data is necessary to avoid assumptions in ISM and DES exercises, thereby enabling biased results. Due to the different settings, time frames and interventions in the reviewed publications, no direct comparison of modeling techniques was applicable. The results from other indications suggest that incremental cost-effective ratios (ICERs) do not differ significantly between Markov and DES models, but DES is able to report more outcome parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Given a sufficient data supply, DES is the modeling technique of choice when modeling cost-effectiveness in RA. Otherwise transparency on the data inputs is crucial for valid results and to inform decision makers about possible biases. With regard to ICERs, Markov models might provide similar estimates as more advanced modeling techniques.

Cost effectiveness of duloxetine for osteoarthritis: a Quebec societal perspective

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost effectiveness of duloxetine compared to other oral postacetaminophen treatments for osteoarthritis (OA) from a Quebec societal perspective.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis was performed enhancing the Markov model from the 2008 OA guidelines of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). The NICE model was extended to include opioid and antidepressant comparators, adding titration, discontinuation, and relevant adverse events (AEs). Comparators included duloxetine, celecoxib, diclofenac, naproxen, hydromorphone, and oxycodone extended release (oxycodone). AEs included gastrointestinal and cardiovascular events associated with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), as well as fracture, opioid abuse, and constipation, among others. Costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated in 2011 Canadian dollars. The base case modeled a cohort of 55-year-old patients with OA for a 12-month period of treatment, followed by treatment from a basket of post-discontinuation oral therapies until death. Sensitivity analyses (one-way and probabilistic) were conducted.

RESULTS

Overall, naproxen was the least expensive treatment, whereas oxycodone was the most expensive. Duloxetine accumulated the highest number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), with an ICER of $36,291 per QALY versus celecoxib. Duloxetine was dominant over opioids. In subgroup analyses, ICERs for duloxetine versus celecoxib were $15,619 and $20,463 for patients at high risk of NSAID-related AEs and patients ages >65 years, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Duloxetine was cost effective for a cohort of 55-year-old patients with OA, and more so in older patients and those with greater AE risks.

Cost-effectiveness analyses of osteoarthritis oral therapies: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) have been performed for oral non-disease-altering osteoarthritis (OA) treatments for well over a decade. During that period the methods for performing these analyses have evolved as pharmacoeconomic methods have advanced, new treatments have been introduced, and the knowledge of associated adverse events (AEs) has improved.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this systematic review was to trace the development of CEAs for oral non-disease-altering treatments in OA.

METHODS

A systematic search for CEAs of OA oral treatments was performed of the English-language medical literature using the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE In-Process, EconLit, and Cochrane. Key requirements for inclusion were that the population described patients with OA or arthritis and that the analysis reported at least one incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Each identified publication was assessed for inclusion. Thirteen characteristics and all AEs appearing in each included CEA were extracted and organized. Reference lists from these CEAs were also searched. A chronology of key CEAs in the field was compiled, noting the characteristics that advanced the state of the art in modeling oral OA treatments.

RESULTS

Thirty publications of 28 CEAs were identified and evaluated. Developments in CEAs included an expanded set of comparators that broadened from non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) only to NSAIDs plus gastroprotective agents, cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, and opioids. In turn, AEs expanded from gastrointestinal (GI) events to also include cardiovascular (CV) and neurological events. Efficacy, which initially was presumed to be equivalent for all treatments, evolved to treatment-specific efficacies. Decision-tree analyses were generally replaced by Markov models or, occasionally, stochastic or discrete event simulation. Finally, outcomes have progressed from GI-centric measures to also include quality-adjusted life-years.

CONCLUSION

Methods used by CEAs of oral non-disease-altering OA treatments have evolved in response to changing treatments with different safety profiles and efficacies as well as technical advances in the application of decision science to health care.

Cost-utility analysis of duloxetine in osteoarthritis: a US private payer perspective

BACKGROUND

Duloxetine has recently been approved in the USA for chronic musculoskeletal pain, including osteoarthritis and chronic low back pain. The cost effectiveness of duloxetine in osteoarthritis has not previously been assessed. Duloxetine is targeted as post first-line (after acetaminophen) treatment of moderate to severe pain.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to estimate the cost effectiveness of duloxetine in the treatment of osteoarthritis from a US private payer perspective compared with other post first-line oral treatments, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and both strong and weak opioids.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis was performed using a discrete-state, time-dependent semi-Markov model based on the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) model documented in its 2008 osteoarthritis guidelines. The model was extended for opioids by adding titration, discontinuation and additional adverse events (AEs). A life-long time horizon was adopted to capture the full consequences of NSAID-induced AEs. Fourteen health states comprised the structure of the model: treatment without persistent AE, six during-AE states, six post-AE states and death. Treatment-specific utilities were calculated using the transfer-to-utility method and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total scores from a meta-analysis of osteoarthritis clinical trials of 12 weeks and longer. Costs for 2011 were estimated using Red Book, The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database, the literature and, sparingly, expert opinion. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken, as well as subgroup analyses of patients over 65 years old and a population at greater risk of NSAID-related AEs.

RESULTS

In the base case the model estimated naproxen to be the lowest total-cost treatment, tapentadol the highest cost, and duloxetine the most effective after considering AEs. Duloxetine accumulated 0.027 discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) more than naproxen and 0.013 more than oxycodone. Celecoxib was dominated by naproxen, tramadol was subject to extended dominance, and strong opioids were dominated by duloxetine. The model estimated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$47,678 per QALY for duloxetine versus naproxen. One-way sensitivity analysis identified the probabilities of NSAID-related cardiovascular AEs as the inputs to which the ICER was most sensitive when duloxetine was compared with an NSAID. When compared with a strong opioid, duloxetine dominated the opioid under nearly all sensitivity analysis scenarios. When compared with tramadol, the ICER was most sensitive to the costs of duloxetine and tramadol. In subgroup analysis, the cost per QALY for duloxetine versus naproxen fell to US$24,125 for patients over 65 years and to US$18,472 for a population at high risk of cardiovascular and gastrointestinal AEs.

CONCLUSION

The model estimated that duloxetine was potentially cost effective in the base-case population and more cost effective for subgroups over 65 years or at high risk of NSAID-related AEs. In sensitivity analysis, duloxetine dominated all strong opioids in nearly all scenarios.

Economic outcomes for celecoxib: a systematic review of pharmacoeconomic studies

Osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis are conditions that are associated with significant clinical burden, and impact on patients' functional status and quality of life. Medical costs related to treating these common and disabling conditions place an economic strain on healthcare systems. This systematic review was conducted to investigate the impact of celecoxib on healthcare costs for patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis. In total, 24 studies examined economic outcomes associated with celecoxib in patients with these conditions. Six of these studies evaluated economic outcomes in developing regions, including Mexico, Asia and Turkey. Across all geographies, most studies were cost-effectiveness analyses comparing celecoxib with nonselective NSAIDs alone or in combination with gastroprotective agents. Overall, based on local standards, economic models indicated favorable cost-effectiveness profiles for celecoxib compared with nonselective NSAIDs and other active-treatment options. Cost analyses indicated that the use of celecoxib resulted in lower direct medical costs.

Celecoxib: a review of its use for symptomatic relief in the treatment of osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis

Celecoxib (Celebrex®) was the first cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 selective inhibitor (coxib) to be introduced into clinical practice. Coxibs were developed to provide anti-inflammatory/analgesic activity similar to that of nonselective NSAIDs, but without their upper gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, which is thought to result largely from COX-1 inhibition. Celecoxib is indicated in the EU for the symptomatic treatment of osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis in adults. This article reviews the clinical efficacy and tolerability of celecoxib in these EU-approved indications, as well as overviewing its pharmacological properties. In randomized controlled trials, celecoxib, at the recommended dosages of 200 or 400 mg/day, was significantly more effective than placebo, at least as effective as or more effective than paracetamol (acetaminophen) and as effective as nonselective NSAIDs and the coxibs etoricoxib and lumiracoxib for the symptomatic treatment of patients with active osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis or ankylosing spondylitis. Celecoxib was generally well tolerated, with mild to moderate upper GI complaints being the most common body system adverse events. In meta-analyses and large safety studies, the incidence of upper GI ulcer complications with recommended dosages of celecoxib was significantly lower than that with nonselective NSAIDs and similar to that with paracetamol and other coxibs. However, concomitant administration of celecoxib with low-dose cardioprotective aspirin often appeared to negate the GI-sparing advantages of celecoxib over NSAIDs. Although one polyp prevention trial noted a dose-related increase in cardiovascular risk with celecoxib 400 and 800 mg/day, other trials have not found any significant difference in cardiovascular risk between celecoxib and placebo or nonselective NSAIDs. Meta-analyses and database-derived analyses are inconsistent regarding cardiovascular risk. At recommended dosages, the risks of increased thrombotic cardiovascular events, or renovascular, hepatic or hypersensitivity reactions with celecoxib would appear to be small and similar to those with NSAIDs. Celecoxib would appear to be a useful option for therapy in patients at high risk for NSAID-induced GI toxicity, or in those responding suboptimally to or intolerant of NSAIDs. To minimize any risk, particularly the cardiovascular risk, celecoxib, like all coxibs and NSAIDs, should be used at the lowest effective dosage for the shortest possible duration after a careful evaluation of the GI, cardiovascular and renal risks of the individual patient.