{"title":"Cost-Effectiveness of Vibrant System vs. Linaclotide in Chronic Idiopathic Constipation.","authors":"Jeffrey D Voigt, Christine L Frissora","doi":"10.1007/s12325-024-03035-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) is a common disorder that has a large unmet clinical need, affecting 8.0-12.0% of the US population and disproportionately affecting female individuals more than male individuals. Patients and physicians are equally dissatisfied with over-the-counter and prescription treatments. Physician dissatisfaction is at 78%. CIC has a significant negative impact on quality of life (QoL). The objective of this analysis was to compare the total cost and QoL of the Vibrant System vs. linaclotide, over 1-3 years of treatment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Markov models were utilized to project 1-3-year US costs and health outcomes (quality adjusted life years, QALYs) comparing the Vibrant System to the current standard of care pharmacologic therapy (linaclotide). One model examined direct (D) costs plus QALYs. Direct (D) costs included list price of product and medical treatment costs due to adverse events. Costs (D) were as of 2024; derived from the medical literature. A second model examined D as well as indirect (I) costs (absenteeism, presenteeism) [D + I] and QALYs. Longitudinal 12-month persistence prescription data for linaclotide was obtained from IQVIA claims data. The Vibrant System persistence data was derived from post market collection. One-way sensitivity analyses were also performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Years 1-3 direct costs were lower with Vibrant System with improved QALYs. Cumulative D + I data analysis for the Vibrant System at 12 months, and for years 2 and 3 show increased cost savings from $345 to $3866 with improved effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>On the basis of lower costs and improved QALYs, the Vibrant System should be considered a first-line therapy for CIC and should be covered by insurers.</p>","PeriodicalId":7482,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Therapy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-024-03035-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) is a common disorder that has a large unmet clinical need, affecting 8.0-12.0% of the US population and disproportionately affecting female individuals more than male individuals. Patients and physicians are equally dissatisfied with over-the-counter and prescription treatments. Physician dissatisfaction is at 78%. CIC has a significant negative impact on quality of life (QoL). The objective of this analysis was to compare the total cost and QoL of the Vibrant System vs. linaclotide, over 1-3 years of treatment.
Methods: Markov models were utilized to project 1-3-year US costs and health outcomes (quality adjusted life years, QALYs) comparing the Vibrant System to the current standard of care pharmacologic therapy (linaclotide). One model examined direct (D) costs plus QALYs. Direct (D) costs included list price of product and medical treatment costs due to adverse events. Costs (D) were as of 2024; derived from the medical literature. A second model examined D as well as indirect (I) costs (absenteeism, presenteeism) [D + I] and QALYs. Longitudinal 12-month persistence prescription data for linaclotide was obtained from IQVIA claims data. The Vibrant System persistence data was derived from post market collection. One-way sensitivity analyses were also performed.
Results: Years 1-3 direct costs were lower with Vibrant System with improved QALYs. Cumulative D + I data analysis for the Vibrant System at 12 months, and for years 2 and 3 show increased cost savings from $345 to $3866 with improved effectiveness.
Conclusion: On the basis of lower costs and improved QALYs, the Vibrant System should be considered a first-line therapy for CIC and should be covered by insurers.
期刊介绍：
Advances in Therapy is an international, peer reviewed, rapid-publication (peer review in 2 weeks, published 3–4 weeks from acceptance) journal dedicated to the publication of high-quality clinical (all phases), observational, real-world, and health outcomes research around the discovery, development, and use of therapeutics and interventions (including devices) across all therapeutic areas. Studies relating to diagnostics and diagnosis, pharmacoeconomics, public health, epidemiology, quality of life, and patient care, management, and education are also encouraged.
The journal is of interest to a broad audience of healthcare professionals and publishes original research, reviews, communications and letters. The journal is read by a global audience and receives submissions from all over the world. Advances in Therapy will consider all scientifically sound research be it positive, confirmatory or negative data. Submissions are welcomed whether they relate to an international and/or a country-specific audience, something that is crucially important when researchers are trying to target more specific patient populations. This inclusive approach allows the journal to assist in the dissemination of all scientifically and ethically sound research.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
