Arthritis treatment in Hong Kong--cost analysis of celecoxib versus conventional NSAIDS, with or without gastroprotective agents

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.

The cost-effectiveness of celecoxib versus non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs plus proton-pump inhibitors in the treatment of osteoarthritis in Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

Cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors including celecoxib are as effective as non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (ns-NSAIDs) in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) and have less gastrointestinal toxicity. Although they are associated with higher treatment costs, COX-2 inhibitors may simultaneously reduce costs associated with adverse events, hence, their overall economic benefit should be assessed.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of celecoxib versus ns-NSAIDs, with/without proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) co-therapy, for managing OA in Saudi Arabian subjects aged ≥65 years.

METHODS

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence health economic model from the UK, updated with relative risks of adverse events using CONDOR trial data, was adapted. Patients received celecoxib or ns-NSAIDs, with/without omeprazole. The effectiveness measure was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained per patient. The analysis was conducted from the patient's perspective. Frequencies of resource use for adverse events were based on data collected in July 2012 from seven private hospitals in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to construct cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs).

RESULTS

Over a 6-month treatment duration, QALYs gained per patient were higher with celecoxib (0.37) and celecoxib plus PPI (0.40) versus comparators. Ibuprofen plus PPI showed the lowest expected cost per patient (US$ 1,314.50 versus US$ 1,422.80 with celecoxib plus PPI and US$ 1,543.50 with celecoxib). Celecoxib plus PPI was the most cost-effective option with an ICER of US$ 1,805.00, followed by celecoxib (ICER, US$ 7,633.33) versus ibuprofen plus PPI. Over 2- and 5-year treatment durations, celecoxib plus PPI, and celecoxib, showed higher QALYs gained/patient and lower ICERs versus comparators. These ICERs are <1 gross domestic product/capita in Saudi Arabia in 2013 (US$ 25,961). CEACs over 6 months' treatment showed a significantly higher likelihood that celecoxib plus PPI and celecoxib alone would be more cost effective versus comparators once the willingness to pay is over US$ 2,000.00.

CONCLUSION

After considering new adverse event risks, celecoxib with/without PPI co-therapy was deemed very cost effective for medium- and long-term use in Saudi Arabian OA patients aged ≥65 years.

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.

Comparison of gastrointestinal adverse effects between cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors and non-selective, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs plus proton pump inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There are conflicting and inconsistent data regarding the gastrointestinal (GI) protective effect of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors and of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) plus proton-pump inhibitors (PPI).

AIM

To compare the adverse GI effects between COX-2 inhibitors and NSAIDs plus PPI.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of randomized trials comparing GI adverse effects between COX-2 inhibitors and NSAID plus PPI. Trials were identified in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Primary outcomes were major GI complications including hemorrhage, perforation, and obstruction.

RESULTS

A total of nine trials involving 7,616 participants from 2002 to 2011 were included. All trials were randomized, double blinded, and placebo-controlled with moderate to high quality. COX-2 inhibitors were found to have significantly reduced the risk of major GI events, including perforation, obstruction, and bleeding (relative risk or RR 0.38, 95 % confidence interval or CI 0.25-0.56, p < 0.001); however, the benefit was significant only for patients who were at high risk for NSAID-related GI complications and long-term users. Additionally, the risk of diarrhea (RR 0.56, 95 % CI 0.35-0.9, p 0.02) and withdrawal (RR 0.77, 95 % CI 0.62-0.94, p 0.01) was significantly lower in use of COX-2 inhibitors, while the rate of dyspepsia was higher (RR 1.58, 95 % CI 1.26-1.98, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

COX-2 inhibitors significantly reduced the risk of perforation, obstruction, bleeding, diarrhea, and withdrawal due to GI adverse events, while the risk of dyspepsia was lower with NSAIDs plus PPI.

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.

A review of the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of COX-2 inhibitors for Africa and the Middle East region

Despite an increasingly sophisticated understanding of pain mechanisms, acute and chronic pain remain undertreated throughout the world. This situation reflects the large gap that exists between evidence and practice in pain management and is typified by inappropriate use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). The scientific evidence around these drugs continues to expand at a high rate, yet physicians are often unaware of best practice. To address this gap among physicians in Africa and the Middle East, an Expert Panel meeting was convened with representatives from the region. The principal objective of the meeting was to review the latest guidelines on the management of acute and chronic pain and to review the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors in these settings. The main outcome of this review process was a number of consensus statements concerning the definitions of acute and chronic pain, and the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of traditional nonselective NSAIDs (nsNSAIDs) and selective COX-2 inhibitors (coxibs). The panel agreed that nsNSAIDs and coxibs are effective analgesics with similar efficacy for acute pain; for chronic musculoskeletal pain, NSAIDs are significantly more effective than either placebo or paracetamol. Coxibs offer important safety advantages over nsNSAIDs, including gastrointestinal safety and preservation of platelet function; notably, the cardiovascular safety of coxibs has been the subject of much recent debate. Furthermore, the panel agreed there is substantial evidence to indicate that cost savings can be achieved by using celecoxib in patients at moderate to high risk of gastrointestinal adverse events, even in countries with moderate healthcare expenditures.

Are COX-2 inhibitors preferable to combined NSAID and PPI in countries with moderate health service expenditures?

RATIONALE

In developed countries, cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2) inhibitors were shown to be less costly than the combination of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in treatment of patients with high risk of serious gastrointestinal (GI) adverse effects. It is questionable if such results apply to developing countries where health service costs are lower and there is high discrepancy between generic and patent protected drug prices. We analysed the direct cost of treatment with generic NSAIDs in combination with PPIs versus branded COX-2 inhibitors in patients with high risk of serious GI adverse effects from the perspective of the public health service in Serbia.

METHODS

Total cost of treatment of serious GI complications and the use of NSAID+PPI versus COX-2 inhibitors were calculated. A model for estimation of cost of treatment of NSAID+PPI versus COX-2 inhibitors which included the probability of developing serious GI adverse effects was developed.

RESULTS

Total cost of treatment of serious GI adverse effects resulted in an average of $814/patient. Considering the relative risk of such adverse effects for patients with four or more risk factors, the least costly treatment over 6 months was the use of celecoxib ($487). Compared with diclofenac+omeprazole, cost savings were estimated at $59 and $22 per patient with celecoxib and etoricoxib, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Cost savings may be achieved by using COX-2 inhibitors in patients at high risk of GI adverse effects even in countries with moderate health care service expenditures. Such possibility requires further investigation.

A comparison of cost effectiveness using data from randomized trials or actual clinical practice: selective cox-2 inhibitors as an example

BACKGROUND

Data on absolute risks of outcomes and patterns of drug use in cost-effectiveness analyses are often based on randomised clinical trials (RCTs). The objective of this study was to evaluate the external validity of published cost-effectiveness studies by comparing the data used in these studies (typically based on RCTs) to observational data from actual clinical practice. Selective Cox-2 inhibitors (coxibs) were used as an example.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

The UK General Practice Research Database (GPRD) was used to estimate the exposure characteristics and individual probabilities of upper gastrointestinal (GI) events during current exposure to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or coxibs. A basic cost-effectiveness model was developed evaluating two alternative strategies: prescription of a conventional NSAID or coxib. Outcomes included upper GI events as recorded in GPRD and hospitalisation for upper GI events recorded in the national registry of hospitalisations (Hospital Episode Statistics) linked to GPRD. Prescription costs were based on the prescribed number of tables as recorded in GPRD and the 2006 cost data from the British National Formulary. The study population included over 1 million patients prescribed conventional NSAIDs or coxibs. Only a minority of patients used the drugs long-term and daily (34.5% of conventional NSAIDs and 44.2% of coxibs), whereas coxib RCTs required daily use for at least 6-9 months. The mean cost of preventing one upper GI event as recorded in GPRD was US$104k (ranging from US$64k with long-term daily use to US$182k with intermittent use) and US$298k for hospitalizations. The mean costs (for GPRD events) over calendar time were US$58k during 1990-1993 and US$174k during 2002-2005. Using RCT data rather than GPRD data for event probabilities, the mean cost was US$16k with the VIGOR RCT and US$20k with the CLASS RCT.

CONCLUSIONS

The published cost-effectiveness analyses of coxibs lacked external validity, did not represent patients in actual clinical practice, and should not have been used to inform prescribing policies. External validity should be an explicit requirement for cost-effectiveness analyses.

Drug-induced side effects affecting the gastrointestinal tract

With the ever-growing armamentarium of pharmacological agents, the gastrointestinal drug-induced side effects of dyspepsia, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and constipation are increasingly seen. They are often self-limiting and without serious sequelae, but of greater concern is drug-induced mucosal ulceration that can manifest as gastrointestinal haemorrhage, stricture and perforation. These complications are mainly attributable to NSAIDs and aspirin, which can injure the mucosa anywhere along the gastrointestinal tract. These iatrogenic serious side effects can be reduced with co-prescription of a proton pump inhibitor, substitution of a COX-2 inhibitor and eradication of Helicobacter pylori when the bacterium is present. Other recognised gastrointestinal complications include small intestinal diaphragm, microscopic colitis, a range of hepatotoxic effects and pancreatitis. The introduction of new classes of drugs has resulted in new adverse effects that require consideration in patients presenting with gastroenterological symptoms. These include pill oesophagitis from bisphosphonates and ischaemic colitis relating to serotonin antagonists. Here, the authors review the literature on drug-induced complications of the gastrointestinal tract and present the pertinent management issues relevant to clinical practice.

An economic model of long-term use of celecoxib in patients with osteoarthritis

Background

Previous evaluations of the cost-effectiveness of the cyclooxygenase-2 selective inhibitor celecoxib (Celebrex, Pfizer Inc, USA) have produced conflicting results. The recent controversy over the cardiovascular (CV) risks of rofecoxib and other coxibs has renewed interest in the economic profile of celecoxib, the only coxib now available in the United States. The objective of our study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of celecoxib compared with nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (nsNSAIDs) in a population of 60-year-old osteoarthritis (OA) patients with average risks of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) complications who require chronic daily NSAID therapy.

Methods

We used decision analysis based on data from the literature to evaluate cost-effectiveness from a modified societal perspective over patients' lifetimes, with outcomes expressed as incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity tests were performed to evaluate the impacts of advancing age, CV thromboembolic event risk, different analytic horizons and alternate treatment strategies after UGI adverse events.

Results

Our main findings were: 1) the base model incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for celecoxib versus nsNSAIDs was $31,097 per QALY; 2) the ICER per QALY was $19,309 for a model in which UGI ulcer and ulcer complication event risks increased with advancing age; 3) the ICER per QALY was $17,120 in sensitivity analyses combining serious CV thromboembolic event (myocardial infarction, stroke, CV death) risks with base model assumptions.

Conclusion

Our model suggests that chronic celecoxib is cost-effective versus nsNSAIDs in a population of 60-year-old OA patients with average risks of UGI events.

Utilisation of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) through community pharmacies in Malaysia

This study was conducted to evaluate the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) by consumers who obtained these drugs from community pharmacies. Factors that influenced community pharmacists in their choice of NSAIDs were also determined. Personal interviews were conducted on consumers who visited the 25 participating community pharmacies throughout Malaysia. Of the 389 respondents, 49% requested for an NSAID by name, 42% asked the pharmacist to recommend a medication and 9% had a doctor's prescription. NSAIDs were mainly purchased for joint/shoulder pain and the most commonly dispensed was diclofenac. Elderly respondents were more likely to be dispensed a selective COX-2 inhibitor than those below 60. NSAIDs were recommended based mainly on the pharmacist's perception of their efficacy, cost and safety. Community pharmacists play an important role in assisting patients in choosing the most appropriate NSAID for their health problems.

Cost-effectiveness of Helicobacter pylori "test and treat" for patients with typical reflux symptoms in a population with a high prevalence of H. pylori infection: a Markov model analysis

OBJECTIVE

Patients with typical reflux symptoms may have underlying peptic ulcer disease (PUD) in a population with a high prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection. In the present study we sought to compare the cost-effectiveness of the H. pylori "test and treat" strategy with that of empirical proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy and endoscopy in patients with typical reflux and a high prevalence of H. pylori infection.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A Markov model was designed to compare the outcomes of three treatment strategies over 12 months among a hypothetical cohort of patients presenting with typical reflux symptoms. There were four exclusive underlying H. pylori- and PUD-related comorbidities in the hypothetical cohort: (1) H. pylori-related PUD, (2) H. pylori infection without PUD, (3) PUD without H. pylori infection and (4) absence of both PUD and H. pylori infection. The transition probabilities and resource utilization were derived from the literature. Percentage of PUD patients treated, total number of symptom-free patient-years gained and total direct medical cost were estimated.

RESULTS

By comparing each strategy individually with the no therapy strategy, it was found that the incremental costs per ulcer treated for H. pylori "test and treat", endoscopy and empirical PPI therapy were USD 1778, USD 1797 and USD 2158, respectively. The results of the model were sensitive to the prevalence of H. pylori infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the H. pylori "test and treat" and initial endoscopic strategies were shown to be more cost-effective than empirical PPI therapy for treating undiagnosed PUD among patients presenting with typical reflux symptoms. The H. pylori "test and treat" strategy appeared to be only slightly more cost-effective than initial endoscopy in a population with a high prevalence of H. pylori infection.

Treatment costs to prevent or treat upper gastrointestinal adverse events associated with NSAIDs

The widespread use of nonselective NSAIDs and cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors has a substantial impact on healthcare budgets worldwide. The cost of their gastrointestinal (GI) adverse effects is a major component of their direct cost and has received much attention in the literature. Published studies have often differed in their methodologies and results. It is important for decision makers to understand the reasons for these differences in order to make informed decisions. We conducted a literature review to summarise data that evaluate the direct costs of NSAID-related GI adverse effects worldwide. This resulted in 789 articles from which 29 studies met the inclusion criteria and were fully reviewed. Of these 29, the 9 studies that assessed the cost of COX-2 inhibitors were all based on decision economic models, compared with only 7 of the remaining 20 studies, which assessed the cost of nonselective NSAIDs. In most studies, the perspective was that of the healthcare payer and the costs assessed were reimbursement costs. Costs of GI events almost doubled between regular users and non-users of nonselective NSAIDs and were much higher in high-dose versus low-dose users. The ratio of the total cost of nonselective NSAIDs to their acquisition cost reported in all studies varied from 1.36 to 2.12. Both of these numbers were reported in one single study assessing several different NSAIDs in France. Thus, the GI adverse events attributable to nonselective NSAIDs are substantial, and their costs often exceed the cost of the nonselective NSAID itself.The acquisition cost of the COX-2 inhibitors was the main driver of their total cost. The GI adverse effects with the COX-2 inhibitors added 10-20% to their acquisition cost in North America, while this increase was about 50% in some European countries. Decision analysis models showed that the direct costs of COX-2 inhibitors were lower than those of nonselective NSAIDs in patients at risk of NSAID gastropathy but higher in patients at no to low risk of gastropathy. Thus, from an economic perspective, the healthcare system would benefit from treating patients at risk of NSAID gastropathy with COX-2 inhibitors, but not those at no to low risk.

What is next for pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research in Asia?

OBJECTIVES

Pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research have the potential for rapid adoption in the Asia Pacific region. Nevertheless, the region is characterized by great diversity in social and economic development, ethnicity, population size, health-care system, culture, language, and religion. Thus, the rate of adoption is also quite diverse across the region.

METHODS

Among the countries reviewed in this article, governments take varying levels of interest in applying this research in health policy decisions. For example, some countries have already implemented systems that require pharmacoeconomic studies as one component of a new pharmaceutical product's approval for reimbursement, whereas others recommend such data but do not require it in policy and medical decision making. The literature in the countries reviewed is actually quite robust given the early stages of development of this field in most countries. The academic community has members trained in this field of research in all the countries reviewed and some universities have established departments whereas others have just introduced a few classes in the area.

RESULTS

At the moment, pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research are being conducted mainly by academics. In addition, some pharmaceutical researchers are active and pharmaceutical companies are currently preparing to conduct more of this research as part of their strategy for Asian drug development.

CONCLUSIONS

Prospects for future growth and development in this field are quite good in Asia as rapid healthcare inflation, increasing rates of chronic conditions and aging population, and increasing technology diffusion will underpin the need for greater awareness of the need to incorporate economic efficiency into the health-care systems.

Economic analysis of celecoxib versus diclofenac plus omeprazole for the treatment of arthritis in patients at risk of ulcer disease

AIM

To evaluate the economic impact of celecoxib therapy vs. diclofenac plus omeprazole therapy for the treatment of arthritis in Chinese patients with a high risk of bleeding, from the perspective of a public health organization in Hong Kong.

METHODS

The medical records of 287 Chinese arthritic patients with a history of bleeding ulcers who had previously participated in a randomised study of celecoxib 200 mg twice daily and extended-release diclofenac 75 mg twice daily plus 20 mg of omeprazole daily for 6 months were reviewed.

RESULTS

Compared to the diclofenac plus omeprazole group, the average total direct cost per patient in the celecoxib group showed a significant reduction of 11%, from HK 10,915 (range HK dollars 10,915-57,899) to HK dollars 9714 (range HK dollars 9714-89,770) (P<0.0001) (1 US dollars=7.8 HK dollars). The median direct medical cost for routine management in the celecoxib group was significantly lower (11%) than that for the diclofenac plus omeprazole group [HK dollars 10,915 (range 10,915-28,048) vs. HK dollars 9714 (range HK dollars 6946-26,179) (P<0.0001)]. In patients who experienced recurrent bleeding, the celecoxib group showed a significantly higher median cost of management of recurrent bleeding than the diclofenac plus omeprazole group [HK dollars 8466 (range 572-29,851) vs. HK dollars 23,210 (range HK dollars 12,318-65,823)] (P=0.036).

CONCLUSIONS

Celecoxib therapy appears to cost less compared with diclofenac plus omeprazole for treatment of arthritis in Chinese patients with a high risk of bleeding.