Cost-utility analysis of duloxetine in osteoarthritis: from Chinese healthcare perspective.

IF 1.8 4区医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research Pub Date : 2024-10-04 DOI:10.1080/14737167.2024.2410973

Xueshan Sun, Xuemei Zhen, Shuyan Gu, Kaijie Liu, Wenqianzi Yang, Hengjin Dong

{"title":"Cost-utility analysis of duloxetine in osteoarthritis: from Chinese healthcare perspective.","authors":"Xueshan Sun, Xuemei Zhen, Shuyan Gu, Kaijie Liu, Wenqianzi Yang, Hengjin Dong","doi":"10.1080/14737167.2024.2410973","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: To estimate the cost-utility of duloxetine compared with that of a placebo, common traditional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) from a Chinese healthcare perspective.Methods: A Markov model was constructed. The costs and utility inputs were obtained from the database and published literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was the main model outputs. Subgroup analyses were also conducted for patients at high risk of gastrointestinal (GI) or cardiovascular (CV) AEs. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.Results: The model estimated an ICER of $3409.21/QALY for duloxetine compared with etoricoxib, with duloxetine dominating other active treatment strategies in patients at a low risk of GI and CV AEs. The ICER for duloxetine over etoricoxib was $322.21/QALY in patients at high risk of GI and CV AEs. These results were consistent with the sensitivity analyses; 53.64% and 53.93% of the patients were willing to use duloxetine comparing with etoricoxib, for which the thresholds were 1.0 and 3.0 per capita gross domestic product (GDP), respectively.Conclusions: Duloxetine is a valuable option for patients with OA; however, uncertainties exist in the model, and these suggestions can be adopted with caution.","PeriodicalId":12244,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2024.2410973","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To estimate the cost-utility of duloxetine compared with that of a placebo, common traditional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) from a Chinese healthcare perspective.

Methods: A Markov model was constructed. The costs and utility inputs were obtained from the database and published literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was the main model outputs. Subgroup analyses were also conducted for patients at high risk of gastrointestinal (GI) or cardiovascular (CV) AEs. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results: The model estimated an ICER of $3409.21/QALY for duloxetine compared with etoricoxib, with duloxetine dominating other active treatment strategies in patients at a low risk of GI and CV AEs. The ICER for duloxetine over etoricoxib was $322.21/QALY in patients at high risk of GI and CV AEs. These results were consistent with the sensitivity analyses; 53.64% and 53.93% of the patients were willing to use duloxetine comparing with etoricoxib, for which the thresholds were 1.0 and 3.0 per capita gross domestic product (GDP), respectively.

Conclusions: Duloxetine is a valuable option for patients with OA; however, uncertainties exist in the model, and these suggestions can be adopted with caution.

查看原文本刊更多论文

从中国医疗保健的角度分析度洛西汀治疗骨关节炎的成本效用。

研究目的从中国医疗保健的角度估算度洛西汀与安慰剂、普通传统非甾体抗炎药（NSAIDs）和环氧化酶-2（COX-2）抑制剂治疗骨关节炎（OA）的成本效用：方法：建立马尔可夫模型。方法：构建马尔可夫模型，从数据库和已发表文献中获取成本和效用输入。增量成本效益比（ICER）是模型的主要输出结果。还对胃肠道（GI）或心血管（CV）AE 高风险患者进行了分组分析。还进行了确定性和概率敏感性分析：该模型估计，与依托考昔相比，度洛西汀的ICER为3409.21美元/QALY，在胃肠道和心血管AE风险较低的患者中，度洛西汀主导其他积极治疗策略。在消化道和心血管意外伤害高风险患者中，度洛西汀与依托考昔相比的ICER为322.21美元/QALY。这些结果与敏感性分析一致；与依托昔布相比，53.64%和53.93%的患者愿意使用度洛西汀，而依托昔布的阈值分别为人均国内生产总值（GDP）的1.0和3.0：度洛西汀对 OA 患者来说是一种有价值的选择；然而，模型中还存在不确定性，因此可以谨慎采纳这些建议。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY

CiteScore

4.00

自引率

4.30%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research (ISSN 1473-7167) provides expert reviews on cost-benefit and pharmacoeconomic issues relating to the clinical use of drugs and therapeutic approaches. Coverage includes pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life research, therapeutic outcomes, evidence-based medicine and cost-benefit research. All articles are subject to rigorous peer-review. The journal adopts the unique Expert Review article format, offering a complete overview of current thinking in a key technology area, research or clinical practice, augmented by the following sections: Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.