Cargando…

A systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies comparing conventional, biological and surgical interventions for inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic disease placing a large health and economic burden on health systems worldwide. The treatment landscape is complex with multiple strategies to induce and maintain remission while avoiding long-term complications. The extent to which rising tr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pillai, Nadia, Dusheiko, Mark, Burnand, Bernard, Pittet, Valérie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5626459/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28973005
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185500
_version_ 1783268548419780608
author Pillai, Nadia
Dusheiko, Mark
Burnand, Bernard
Pittet, Valérie
author_facet Pillai, Nadia
Dusheiko, Mark
Burnand, Bernard
Pittet, Valérie
author_sort Pillai, Nadia
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic disease placing a large health and economic burden on health systems worldwide. The treatment landscape is complex with multiple strategies to induce and maintain remission while avoiding long-term complications. The extent to which rising treatment costs, due to expensive biologic agents, are offset by improved outcomes and fewer hospitalisations and surgeries needs to be evaluated. This systematic review aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies for IBD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in March 2017 to identify economic evaluations of pharmacological and surgical interventions, for adults diagnosed with Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC). Costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were adjusted to reflect 2015 purchasing power parity (PPP). Risk of bias assessments and a narrative synthesis of individual study findings are presented. RESULTS: Forty-nine articles were included; 24 on CD and 25 on UC. Infliximab and adalimumab induction and maintenance treatments were cost-effective compared to standard care in patients with moderate or severe CD; however, in patients with conventional-drug refractory CD, fistulising CD and for maintenance of surgically-induced remission ICERs were above acceptable cost-effectiveness thresholds. In mild UC, induction of remission using high dose mesalazine was dominant compared to standard dose. In UC refractory to conventional treatments, infliximab and adalimumab induction and maintenance treatment were not cost-effective compared to standard care; however, ICERs for treatment with vedolizumab and surgery were favourable. CONCLUSIONS: We found that, in general, while biologic agents helped improve outcomes, they incurred high costs and therefore were not cost-effective, particularly for use as maintenance therapy. The cost-effectiveness of biologic agents may improve as market prices fall and with the introduction of biosimilars. Future research should identify optimal treatment strategies reflecting routine clinical practice, incorporate indirect costs and evaluate lifetime costs and benefits.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5626459
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56264592017-10-17 A systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies comparing conventional, biological and surgical interventions for inflammatory bowel disease Pillai, Nadia Dusheiko, Mark Burnand, Bernard Pittet, Valérie PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic disease placing a large health and economic burden on health systems worldwide. The treatment landscape is complex with multiple strategies to induce and maintain remission while avoiding long-term complications. The extent to which rising treatment costs, due to expensive biologic agents, are offset by improved outcomes and fewer hospitalisations and surgeries needs to be evaluated. This systematic review aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies for IBD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in March 2017 to identify economic evaluations of pharmacological and surgical interventions, for adults diagnosed with Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC). Costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were adjusted to reflect 2015 purchasing power parity (PPP). Risk of bias assessments and a narrative synthesis of individual study findings are presented. RESULTS: Forty-nine articles were included; 24 on CD and 25 on UC. Infliximab and adalimumab induction and maintenance treatments were cost-effective compared to standard care in patients with moderate or severe CD; however, in patients with conventional-drug refractory CD, fistulising CD and for maintenance of surgically-induced remission ICERs were above acceptable cost-effectiveness thresholds. In mild UC, induction of remission using high dose mesalazine was dominant compared to standard dose. In UC refractory to conventional treatments, infliximab and adalimumab induction and maintenance treatment were not cost-effective compared to standard care; however, ICERs for treatment with vedolizumab and surgery were favourable. CONCLUSIONS: We found that, in general, while biologic agents helped improve outcomes, they incurred high costs and therefore were not cost-effective, particularly for use as maintenance therapy. The cost-effectiveness of biologic agents may improve as market prices fall and with the introduction of biosimilars. Future research should identify optimal treatment strategies reflecting routine clinical practice, incorporate indirect costs and evaluate lifetime costs and benefits. Public Library of Science 2017-10-03 /pmc/articles/PMC5626459/ /pubmed/28973005 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185500 Text en © 2017 Pillai et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Pillai, Nadia
Dusheiko, Mark
Burnand, Bernard
Pittet, Valérie
A systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies comparing conventional, biological and surgical interventions for inflammatory bowel disease
title A systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies comparing conventional, biological and surgical interventions for inflammatory bowel disease
title_full A systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies comparing conventional, biological and surgical interventions for inflammatory bowel disease
title_fullStr A systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies comparing conventional, biological and surgical interventions for inflammatory bowel disease
title_full_unstemmed A systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies comparing conventional, biological and surgical interventions for inflammatory bowel disease
title_short A systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies comparing conventional, biological and surgical interventions for inflammatory bowel disease
title_sort systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies comparing conventional, biological and surgical interventions for inflammatory bowel disease
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5626459/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28973005
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185500
work_keys_str_mv AT pillainadia asystematicreviewofcosteffectivenessstudiescomparingconventionalbiologicalandsurgicalinterventionsforinflammatoryboweldisease
AT dusheikomark asystematicreviewofcosteffectivenessstudiescomparingconventionalbiologicalandsurgicalinterventionsforinflammatoryboweldisease
AT burnandbernard asystematicreviewofcosteffectivenessstudiescomparingconventionalbiologicalandsurgicalinterventionsforinflammatoryboweldisease
AT pittetvalerie asystematicreviewofcosteffectivenessstudiescomparingconventionalbiologicalandsurgicalinterventionsforinflammatoryboweldisease
AT pillainadia systematicreviewofcosteffectivenessstudiescomparingconventionalbiologicalandsurgicalinterventionsforinflammatoryboweldisease
AT dusheikomark systematicreviewofcosteffectivenessstudiescomparingconventionalbiologicalandsurgicalinterventionsforinflammatoryboweldisease
AT burnandbernard systematicreviewofcosteffectivenessstudiescomparingconventionalbiologicalandsurgicalinterventionsforinflammatoryboweldisease
AT pittetvalerie systematicreviewofcosteffectivenessstudiescomparingconventionalbiologicalandsurgicalinterventionsforinflammatoryboweldisease