意大利延释富马酸二甲酯治疗复发缓解型多发性硬化症的成本-效果分析

IF 0.4 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
G. Furneri, L. Santoni, C. Marchesi, S. Iannazzo, P. Cortesi, A. Caputi, L. Mantovani
{"title":"意大利延释富马酸二甲酯治疗复发缓解型多发性硬化症的成本-效果分析","authors":"G. Furneri, L. Santoni, C. Marchesi, S. Iannazzo, P. Cortesi, A. Caputi, L. Mantovani","doi":"10.7175/FE.V17I2.1251","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION: Disease Modifying Therapies (DMTs) have significantly improved clinical conditions of Relapsing Remitting Multiple Sclerosis (RRMS) patients. However, several unmet needs are still relevant in RRMS. Recently, a new therapy, delayed-release dimethyl-fumarate (DMF; also known as gastro-resistant DMF), has been approved and reimbursed by the Italian Drug Agency (AIFA) for the treatment of RRMS. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of DMF vs. pharmacological alternatives indicated for the first-line treatment of RRMS in Italy. METHODS: The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Italian National Healthcare Service (NHS) and outcomes and costs were evaluated over a 50-year time horizon (equivalent to a lifetime horizon). Both outcomes and costs were discounted at 3.5%. The Markov model estimates the clinical and economic consequences of treating RRMS patients with the following therapeutic options: DMF, interferon (IFN) beta-1a intramuscular (IM); IFN beta-1a subcutaneous (SC) at two different doses, 22 mcg and 44 mcg; IFN beta-1b SC; glatiramer acetate (GA) SC 20 mg; oral teriflunomide. Clinical efficacy data used in this analysis came from an elaboration of the mixed treatment comparison (MTC) already published. According to the Italian NHS perspective, only the following direct costs were considered: pharmacological treatment acquisition, treatment monitoring, relapse management, direct costs associated with disability, adverse event management. Administration costs were assumed equal to €0, because every treatment included in the economic analysis can be self-administered. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were developed and cost effectiveness acceptability curves generated. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, DMF was more efficacious than alternatives, in terms of both survival (19.496 vs. 19.297-19.461 discounted LYs, respectively), and QALYs (6.548 vs. 5.172- 6.212 discounted QALYs, respectively). Per-patient lifetime costs with DMF amounted to € 276,500, similarly to the other options. DMF was the drug with the largest effect of disability cost reduction. DMF was dominant vs. IFN beta-1a 44 mcg and cost-effective vs. all other IFNs, GA and teriflunomide, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICERs) between € 11,272 and € 23,409. All ICER values were lower than the € 50,000 per QALY threshold. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that, for all tested scenarios, ICER of DMF vs. therapeutic alternatives remained favourable (≤ 50.000 €/QALY gained) and the results of probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability for DMF of being favourable (≤ 50.000 €/QALY gained) was between around 70% and 93%, thus ensuring robustness of the results. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this economic analysis show that, at the current price and the described assumptions, DMF represents a cost-effective option vs. other available first-line treatments indicated in RRMS in the perspective of the Italian NHS. [Article in Italian]","PeriodicalId":41585,"journal":{"name":"Farmeconomia-Health Economics and Therapeutic Pathways","volume":"49 1","pages":"67-80"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2016-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Cost-effectiveness analysis of delayed-release dimethyl-fumarate in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Italy]\",\"authors\":\"G. Furneri, L. Santoni, C. Marchesi, S. Iannazzo, P. Cortesi, A. Caputi, L. Mantovani\",\"doi\":\"10.7175/FE.V17I2.1251\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"INTRODUCTION: Disease Modifying Therapies (DMTs) have significantly improved clinical conditions of Relapsing Remitting Multiple Sclerosis (RRMS) patients. However, several unmet needs are still relevant in RRMS. Recently, a new therapy, delayed-release dimethyl-fumarate (DMF; also known as gastro-resistant DMF), has been approved and reimbursed by the Italian Drug Agency (AIFA) for the treatment of RRMS. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of DMF vs. pharmacological alternatives indicated for the first-line treatment of RRMS in Italy. METHODS: The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Italian National Healthcare Service (NHS) and outcomes and costs were evaluated over a 50-year time horizon (equivalent to a lifetime horizon). Both outcomes and costs were discounted at 3.5%. The Markov model estimates the clinical and economic consequences of treating RRMS patients with the following therapeutic options: DMF, interferon (IFN) beta-1a intramuscular (IM); IFN beta-1a subcutaneous (SC) at two different doses, 22 mcg and 44 mcg; IFN beta-1b SC; glatiramer acetate (GA) SC 20 mg; oral teriflunomide. Clinical efficacy data used in this analysis came from an elaboration of the mixed treatment comparison (MTC) already published. According to the Italian NHS perspective, only the following direct costs were considered: pharmacological treatment acquisition, treatment monitoring, relapse management, direct costs associated with disability, adverse event management. Administration costs were assumed equal to €0, because every treatment included in the economic analysis can be self-administered. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were developed and cost effectiveness acceptability curves generated. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, DMF was more efficacious than alternatives, in terms of both survival (19.496 vs. 19.297-19.461 discounted LYs, respectively), and QALYs (6.548 vs. 5.172- 6.212 discounted QALYs, respectively). Per-patient lifetime costs with DMF amounted to € 276,500, similarly to the other options. DMF was the drug with the largest effect of disability cost reduction. DMF was dominant vs. IFN beta-1a 44 mcg and cost-effective vs. all other IFNs, GA and teriflunomide, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICERs) between € 11,272 and € 23,409. All ICER values were lower than the € 50,000 per QALY threshold. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that, for all tested scenarios, ICER of DMF vs. therapeutic alternatives remained favourable (≤ 50.000 €/QALY gained) and the results of probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability for DMF of being favourable (≤ 50.000 €/QALY gained) was between around 70% and 93%, thus ensuring robustness of the results. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this economic analysis show that, at the current price and the described assumptions, DMF represents a cost-effective option vs. other available first-line treatments indicated in RRMS in the perspective of the Italian NHS. [Article in Italian]\",\"PeriodicalId\":41585,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Farmeconomia-Health Economics and Therapeutic Pathways\",\"volume\":\"49 1\",\"pages\":\"67-80\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-06-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Farmeconomia-Health Economics and Therapeutic Pathways\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7175/FE.V17I2.1251\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Farmeconomia-Health Economics and Therapeutic Pathways","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7175/FE.V17I2.1251","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

疾病修饰疗法(dmt)显著改善了复发缓解型多发性硬化症(RRMS)患者的临床状况。然而,一些未满足的需求仍然与RRMS相关。最近,一种新的治疗方法,延释富马酸二甲酯(DMF);也被称为胃耐药DMF),已被意大利药品管理局(AIFA)批准并报销用于治疗RRMS。目的:比较意大利用于RRMS一线治疗的DMF与替代药物的成本-效果。方法:从意大利国家医疗保健服务(NHS)的角度进行分析,并在50年的时间范围内(相当于一生的时间范围)评估结果和成本。结果和成本均以3.5%折现。马尔可夫模型估计了用以下治疗方案治疗RRMS患者的临床和经济后果:DMF,干扰素(IFN) β -1a肌内注射(IM);IFN β -1a皮下(SC)两种不同剂量,22 mcg和44 mcg;IFN β -1b SC;醋酸格拉替默(GA) SC 20 mg;口服teriflunomide。本分析中使用的临床疗效数据来自已发表的混合治疗比较(MTC)的详细阐述。根据意大利NHS的观点,仅考虑以下直接成本:获得药物治疗、治疗监测、复发管理、与残疾相关的直接成本、不良事件管理。假设管理成本等于0欧元,因为经济分析中包含的每一种治疗都可以自我管理。进行了单向和概率敏感性分析,并生成了成本效益可接受性曲线。结果:在基本病例分析中,DMF在生存率(分别为19.496比19.297-19.461折现LYs)和QALYs(分别为6.548比5.172- 6.212折现QALYs)方面都比替代方案更有效。与其他选择类似,使用DMF的每位患者终身成本为276,500欧元。DMF是降低残疾费用效果最大的药物。DMF与IFN β -1a 44微克相比占主导地位,与所有其他IFN、GA和teriflunomide相比具有成本效益,增量成本效益比(ICERs)在11,272欧元至23,409欧元之间。所有ICER值都低于每个QALY阈值50,000欧元。单向敏感性分析显示,在所有测试场景中,DMF与治疗方案的ICER仍然有利(≤50,000欧元/获得的QALY),概率敏感性分析结果显示,DMF有利(≤50,000欧元/获得的QALY)的概率在70%至93%之间,从而确保了结果的稳稳性。结论:这一经济分析的结果表明,在目前的价格和所描述的假设下,从意大利NHS的角度来看,与RRMS中其他可用的一线治疗相比,DMF代表了一种具有成本效益的选择。[意大利语文章]
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
[Cost-effectiveness analysis of delayed-release dimethyl-fumarate in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Italy]
INTRODUCTION: Disease Modifying Therapies (DMTs) have significantly improved clinical conditions of Relapsing Remitting Multiple Sclerosis (RRMS) patients. However, several unmet needs are still relevant in RRMS. Recently, a new therapy, delayed-release dimethyl-fumarate (DMF; also known as gastro-resistant DMF), has been approved and reimbursed by the Italian Drug Agency (AIFA) for the treatment of RRMS. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of DMF vs. pharmacological alternatives indicated for the first-line treatment of RRMS in Italy. METHODS: The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Italian National Healthcare Service (NHS) and outcomes and costs were evaluated over a 50-year time horizon (equivalent to a lifetime horizon). Both outcomes and costs were discounted at 3.5%. The Markov model estimates the clinical and economic consequences of treating RRMS patients with the following therapeutic options: DMF, interferon (IFN) beta-1a intramuscular (IM); IFN beta-1a subcutaneous (SC) at two different doses, 22 mcg and 44 mcg; IFN beta-1b SC; glatiramer acetate (GA) SC 20 mg; oral teriflunomide. Clinical efficacy data used in this analysis came from an elaboration of the mixed treatment comparison (MTC) already published. According to the Italian NHS perspective, only the following direct costs were considered: pharmacological treatment acquisition, treatment monitoring, relapse management, direct costs associated with disability, adverse event management. Administration costs were assumed equal to €0, because every treatment included in the economic analysis can be self-administered. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were developed and cost effectiveness acceptability curves generated. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, DMF was more efficacious than alternatives, in terms of both survival (19.496 vs. 19.297-19.461 discounted LYs, respectively), and QALYs (6.548 vs. 5.172- 6.212 discounted QALYs, respectively). Per-patient lifetime costs with DMF amounted to € 276,500, similarly to the other options. DMF was the drug with the largest effect of disability cost reduction. DMF was dominant vs. IFN beta-1a 44 mcg and cost-effective vs. all other IFNs, GA and teriflunomide, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICERs) between € 11,272 and € 23,409. All ICER values were lower than the € 50,000 per QALY threshold. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that, for all tested scenarios, ICER of DMF vs. therapeutic alternatives remained favourable (≤ 50.000 €/QALY gained) and the results of probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability for DMF of being favourable (≤ 50.000 €/QALY gained) was between around 70% and 93%, thus ensuring robustness of the results. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this economic analysis show that, at the current price and the described assumptions, DMF represents a cost-effective option vs. other available first-line treatments indicated in RRMS in the perspective of the Italian NHS. [Article in Italian]
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信