Yana Pryymachenko, Ross Wilson, Nicola Dalbeth, J Haxby Abbott, Lisa Stamp
{"title":"使用别嘌呤醇治疗痛风时低剂量秋水仙碱预防的成本效益:来自一项非劣效性随机双盲安慰剂对照试验的证据","authors":"Yana Pryymachenko, Ross Wilson, Nicola Dalbeth, J Haxby Abbott, Lisa Stamp","doi":"10.1002/acr.25631","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of low-dose colchicine prophylaxis for preventing gout flares when starting allopurinol using the \"start-low go-slow\" approach.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants with gout, fulfilling the American College of Rheumatology recommendations for starting urate-lowering therapy and with serum urate ≥0.36 mmol/L (6mg/dL), were randomly allocated (1:1) to either colchicine (0.5 mg daily) or placebo for six months with a further six-month follow-up. All participants received allopurinol, with monthly increase in dose to achieve target urate <0.36 mmol/L. The primary outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness at 6-month and 1-year follow-up from the health system perspective, measured by incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) at a willingness-to-pay threshold equivalent to gross domestic product per capita.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two hundred participants were randomized to either colchicine (n=100) or placebo (n=100). Mean costs were higher in the colchicine group over both 6 months and 1 year (adjusted mean difference $1 848 [95%CI -321 to 4 017] and $2 282 [95%CI -173 to 4 737], respectively). Quality-adjusted life years were slightly higher in the colchicine group over 6 months (adjusted mean difference 0.008 [95%CI -0.020 to 0.035]), but lower over 1 year (-0.015, [95%CI -0.039 to 0.010]). Treatment with colchicine was not found to be cost-effective at either 6-months or 12-months (INMB -$1 373 (95%CI -4 287 to 1 542) and -$3 191 (95%CI -6 274 to -107), probability of cost-effectiveness 17.7% and 1.5%, respectively). Similar results were obtained from a societal perspective.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Six months of low-dose colchicine prophylaxis when starting allopurinol using the \"start-low go-slow\" approach is unlikely to be cost-effective over 12 months.</p>","PeriodicalId":8406,"journal":{"name":"Arthritis Care & Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost-effectiveness of low dose colchicine prophylaxis when starting allopurinol using the \\\"start-low go-slow\\\" approach for gout: evidence from a non-inferiority randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"Yana Pryymachenko, Ross Wilson, Nicola Dalbeth, J Haxby Abbott, Lisa Stamp\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/acr.25631\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of low-dose colchicine prophylaxis for preventing gout flares when starting allopurinol using the \\\"start-low go-slow\\\" approach.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants with gout, fulfilling the American College of Rheumatology recommendations for starting urate-lowering therapy and with serum urate ≥0.36 mmol/L (6mg/dL), were randomly allocated (1:1) to either colchicine (0.5 mg daily) or placebo for six months with a further six-month follow-up. All participants received allopurinol, with monthly increase in dose to achieve target urate <0.36 mmol/L. The primary outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness at 6-month and 1-year follow-up from the health system perspective, measured by incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) at a willingness-to-pay threshold equivalent to gross domestic product per capita.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two hundred participants were randomized to either colchicine (n=100) or placebo (n=100). Mean costs were higher in the colchicine group over both 6 months and 1 year (adjusted mean difference $1 848 [95%CI -321 to 4 017] and $2 282 [95%CI -173 to 4 737], respectively). Quality-adjusted life years were slightly higher in the colchicine group over 6 months (adjusted mean difference 0.008 [95%CI -0.020 to 0.035]), but lower over 1 year (-0.015, [95%CI -0.039 to 0.010]). Treatment with colchicine was not found to be cost-effective at either 6-months or 12-months (INMB -$1 373 (95%CI -4 287 to 1 542) and -$3 191 (95%CI -6 274 to -107), probability of cost-effectiveness 17.7% and 1.5%, respectively). Similar results were obtained from a societal perspective.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Six months of low-dose colchicine prophylaxis when starting allopurinol using the \\\"start-low go-slow\\\" approach is unlikely to be cost-effective over 12 months.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8406,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Arthritis Care & Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Arthritis Care & Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.25631\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RHEUMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arthritis Care & Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.25631","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Cost-effectiveness of low dose colchicine prophylaxis when starting allopurinol using the "start-low go-slow" approach for gout: evidence from a non-inferiority randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial.
Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of low-dose colchicine prophylaxis for preventing gout flares when starting allopurinol using the "start-low go-slow" approach.
Methods: Participants with gout, fulfilling the American College of Rheumatology recommendations for starting urate-lowering therapy and with serum urate ≥0.36 mmol/L (6mg/dL), were randomly allocated (1:1) to either colchicine (0.5 mg daily) or placebo for six months with a further six-month follow-up. All participants received allopurinol, with monthly increase in dose to achieve target urate <0.36 mmol/L. The primary outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness at 6-month and 1-year follow-up from the health system perspective, measured by incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) at a willingness-to-pay threshold equivalent to gross domestic product per capita.
Results: Two hundred participants were randomized to either colchicine (n=100) or placebo (n=100). Mean costs were higher in the colchicine group over both 6 months and 1 year (adjusted mean difference $1 848 [95%CI -321 to 4 017] and $2 282 [95%CI -173 to 4 737], respectively). Quality-adjusted life years were slightly higher in the colchicine group over 6 months (adjusted mean difference 0.008 [95%CI -0.020 to 0.035]), but lower over 1 year (-0.015, [95%CI -0.039 to 0.010]). Treatment with colchicine was not found to be cost-effective at either 6-months or 12-months (INMB -$1 373 (95%CI -4 287 to 1 542) and -$3 191 (95%CI -6 274 to -107), probability of cost-effectiveness 17.7% and 1.5%, respectively). Similar results were obtained from a societal perspective.
Conclusion: Six months of low-dose colchicine prophylaxis when starting allopurinol using the "start-low go-slow" approach is unlikely to be cost-effective over 12 months.
期刊介绍:
Arthritis Care & Research, an official journal of the American College of Rheumatology and the Association of Rheumatology Health Professionals (a division of the College), is a peer-reviewed publication that publishes original research, review articles, and editorials that promote excellence in the clinical practice of rheumatology. Relevant to the care of individuals with rheumatic diseases, major topics are evidence-based practice studies, clinical problems, practice guidelines, educational, social, and public health issues, health economics, health care policy, and future trends in rheumatology practice.