Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
PharmacoEconomics
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 4/2010

01-04-2010 | Original Research Article

Cost Effectiveness of Etoricoxib versus Celecoxib and Non-Selective NSAIDS in the Treatment of Ankylosing Spondylitis

Authors: Dr Jeroen P. Jansen, Sabine Gaugris, Ernest H. Choy, Andrew Ostor, Julian T. Nash, Wiro Stam

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 4/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of etoricoxib (90mg/day) relative to celecoxib (200 or 400mg/day), and the non-selective NSAIDs naproxen (1000mg/day) and diclofenac (150 mg/day) in the initial treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) from the UK NHS perspective.
Methods: A Bayesian cost-effectiveness model was developed to estimate the costs and benefits associated with initiating AS treatment with etoricoxib, celecoxib, diclofenac or naproxen. Efficacy, safety and medical resource and cost data were obtained from the literature. The obtained efficacy estimates were synthesized with a mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Treatment benefit and degree of disease activity, as reflected with Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) scores, were related to QALYs and AS-specific costs (related to BASDAI). Other cost outcomes related to drug acquisition, and gastrointestinal and cardiovascular safety. Uncertainty in the source data was translated into uncertainty in cost-effectiveness estimates and therefore decision uncertainty. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5% per annum.
Results: There was a >98% probability that treatment with etoricoxib results in greater QALYs than the other interventions. Over a 30-year time horizon, starting AS treatment with etoricoxib was associated with about 0.4 more QALYs than the other interventions. At 2 years there was a 77% probability that etoricoxib had the lowest cost. This increased to >99% at 30 years. Etoricoxib is expected to save £13 620 (year 2007 values) relative to celecoxib (200/400 mg), £9957 relative to diclofenac and d9863 relative to naproxen. For a willingness-to-pay ceiling ratio of £20 000 per QALY, there was a >97% probability that etoricoxib was the most cost-effective treatment. Additional analysis with different assumptions, including celecoxib 200 mg, and ignoring cost-offsets associated with improvements in disease activity, supported these findings.
Conclusions: This economic evaluation suggests that, from the UK NHS perspective, etoricoxib is the most cost-effective initial NSAID treatment for AS patients.
Literature
1.
Gossec L, van der Heijde D, Melian A, et al. Efficacy of cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibition by etoricoxib and naproxen on the axial manifestations of ankylosing spondylitis in the presence of peripheral arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2005; 64: 1563–7PubMedCrossRef
2.
Saraux A, Guillemin F, Guggenbuhl P, et al. Prevalence of spondyloarthropathies in France: 2001. Ann Rheum Dis 2005; 64: 1431–5PubMedCrossRef
3.
Braun J, Bollow M, Remlinger G, et al. Prevalence of spondyloarthropathies in HLA-B27 positive and negative blood donors. Arthritis Rheum 1998; 41: 58–67PubMedCrossRef
4.
Clarke AK, O’Hea J, Irons K, et al., editors. Guidebook for patients: a positive response to ankylosing spondylitis. Answers and practical advice. Bath: Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases and The National Ankylosing Spondylitis Society, 2007 Mar [online]. Available from URL: http://​www.​nass.​co.​uk/​public/​zips/​NassBook.​pdf [Accessed 2008 Apr 1]
5.
Arthritis Research Campaign. Arthritis: the big picture. Chesterfield: ARC, 2002
6.
Boonen A, van der Heijde D, Landewe R. Direct costs of ankylosing spondylitis and its determinants: an analysis among three European countries. Ann Rheum Dis 2003; 62: 732–40PubMedCrossRef
7.
Kobelt G, Andlin-Sobocki P, Brophy S, et al. The burden of ankylosing spondylitis and the cost-effectiveness of treatment with infliximab (Remicade). Rheumatology 2004; 43: 1158–66PubMedCrossRef
8.
Sieper J, Braun J. New treatment options in ankylosing spondylitis: a role for anti-TNFa therapy. Ann Rheum Dis 2001; 60: iii 58–61
9.
Braun J, Pham T, Sieper J, et al. International ASAS consensus statement for the use of anti-tumour necrosis factor agents in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 2003; 62: 817–24PubMedCrossRef
10.
Zochling J, van der Heijde D, Dougados M, et al. Current evidence for the management of ankylosing spondylitis: a systematic literature review for the ASAS/EULAR management recommendations in ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 2006; 65: 423–32PubMedCrossRef
11.
Keat A, Barkham N, Bhalla A, et al., BSR Standards, Guidelines and Audit Working group. BSR guidelines for prescribing TNF-alpha blockers in adults with ankylosing spondylitis: report of a working party of the British Society for Rheumatology. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2005; 44: 939–47CrossRef
12.
Ramey DR, Watson JD, Yu CB, et al. The incidence of upper gastrointestinal adverse events in clinical trials of etoricoxib vs non-selective NSAIDs: an updated combined analysis. Curr Med Res Opin 2005; 21: 715–22PubMedCrossRef
13.
van der Heijde D, Baraf HS, Ramos-Remus C, et al. Evaluation of the efficacy of etoricoxib in ankylosing spondylitis: results of a fifty-two-week, randomized, controlled study. Arthritis Rheum 2005; 52: 1205–15PubMedCrossRef
14.
Sieper J, Klopsch T, Richter M, et al. Comparison of two different dosages of celecoxib with diclofenac for the treatment of active ankylosing spondylitis: results of a 12-week randomised double-blind controlled study. Ann Rheum Dis 2008; 67 (3): 323–9PubMedCrossRef
15.
Hunt RH, Harper S, Callegari P, et al. Complementary studies of the gastrointestinal safety of the cyclo-oxygenase- 2-selective inhibitor etoricoxib. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2003; 17: 201–10PubMedCrossRef
16.
Hunt RH, Harper S, Watson DJ, et al. The gastrointestinal safety of the COX-2 selective inhibitor etoricoxib assessed by both endoscopy and analysis of upper gastrointestinal events. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 1725–33PubMedCrossRef
17.
Silverstein FE, Faich G, Goldstein JL, et al. Gastrointestinal toxicity with celecoxib vs nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: the CLASS study. A randomized controlled trial. Celecoxib Long-term Arthritis Safety Study. JAMA 2000 Sep 13; 284 (10): 1247–55PubMedCrossRef
18.
19.
Cannon CP, Curtis SP, FitzGerald GA, et al. Cardiovascular outcomes with etoricoxib and diclofenac in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis in the Multinational Etoricoxib and Diclofenac Arthritis Long-term (MEDAL) programme: a randomised comparison. Lancet 2006; 368: 1771–81PubMedCrossRef
20.
Cooper NJ, Sutton AJ, Abrams KR. Decision analytical economic modelling within a Bayesian framework: application to prophylactic antibiotics use for Caesarean section. Stat Methods Med Res 2002; 11: 491–512PubMedCrossRef
21.
Sonnenberg FA, Beck JR. Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide. Med Decis Making 1993 Oct-Dec; 13 (4): 322–38PubMedCrossRef
22.
Calin A, Garrett S, Whitelock H, et al. A new approach to defining functional ability in ankylosing spondylitis: the development of the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index. J Rheumatol 1994; 21 (12): 2281–5PubMed
23.
Garrett S, Jenkinson T, Kennedy LG, et al. A new approach to defining disease status in ankylosing spondylitis: the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index. J Rheumatol 1994; 21 (12): 2286–91PubMed
24.
Ara RM, Reynolds AV, Conway P. The cost-effectiveness of etanercept in patients with severe ankylosing spondylitis in the UK. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2007; 46: 1338–44CrossRef
25.
Barkhuizen A, Steinfeld S, Robbins J, et al. Celecoxib is efficacious and well tolerated in treating signs and symptoms of ankylosing spondylitis. J Rheumatol 2006; 33: 1805–12PubMed
26.
Dougados M, Behier JM, Jolchine I, et al. Efficacy of celecoxib, a cyclooxygenase 2-specific inhibitor, in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis: a six-week controlled study with comparison against placebo and against a conventional nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug. Arthritis Rheum 2001; 44: 180–5PubMedCrossRef
27.
Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2004; 23: 3105–24PubMedCrossRef
28.
Jansen JP, Crawford B, Bergman G, et al. Bayesian metaanalysis of multiple treatment comparisons: an introduction to mixed treatment comparisons. Value Health 2008; 11: 956–64PubMedCrossRef
29.
Boonen A, van der Heijde D, Stevens JL, et al. Markov model into the cost-utility over five years of etanercept and infliximab compared with usual care in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 2006; 65: 201–8PubMedCrossRef
30.
Taylor AL, Balakrishnan C, Calin A. Reference percentile charts for measures of disease activity, functional impairment, and metrology in ankylosing spondylitis. Arthritis Rheum 1998; 41: 1119–25PubMedCrossRef
31.
Botteman MF, Hay JW, Luo MP, et al. Cost effectiveness of adalimumab for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis in the United Kingdom. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2007; 46: 1320–8CrossRef
32.
Kristensen LE, Saxne T, Geborek P. The LUNDEX, a new index of drug efficacy in clinical practice: results of a fiveyear observational study of treatment with infliximab and etanercept among rheumatoid arthritis patients in southern Sweden. Arthritis Rheum 2006; 4: 600–6CrossRef
33.
Laine L, Curtis SP, Cryer B, et al., for the MEDAL Steering Committee. Assessment of upper gastrointestinal safety of etoricoxib and diclofenac in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis in the Multinational Etoricoxib and Diclofenac Arthritis Long-term(MEDAL) programme: a randomised comparison. Lancet 2007; 369: 465–73PubMedCrossRef
34.
Moore RA, Phillips CJP, Hunsche E, et al. Economic evaluation of etoricoxib versus non-selective NSAIDs in the treatment of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis patients in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics 2004; 22 (10): 643–60PubMedCrossRef
35.
Bloom BS. Direct medical costs of disease and gastrointestinal side effects during treatment of arthritis. Am J Med 1998; 84: 315–22
36.
Knill-Jones R, Drummond M, Kohli H, et al. Economic evaluation of gastric ulcer prophylaxis in patients with arthritis receiving non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Postgrad Med J 1990; 66: 639–46PubMedCrossRef
37.
Singh G, Ramey D. NSAID induced gastrointestinal complications: the ARAMIS perspective. 1997: arthritis, rheumatism, and aging medical information system. J Rheum 1998; 51: 8–16
38.
de Pouvourville G. The economic consequences of NSAIDinduced gastropathy: the French context. Scan J Rheumatol 1992; 96: 49–53CrossRef
39.
Jönsson B, Haglund U. Cost-effectiveness of misoprostol in Sweden. Int J Tech Assess Health Care 1992; 8: 234–44CrossRef
40.
Gabriel SE, Matteson EL. Economic and quality of life impact of NSAIDs in rheumatoid arthritis: a conceptual framework and selected literature review. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 8 (6): 479–90PubMedCrossRef
41.
Smalley WE, Griffin MR, Fought RL, et al. Excess costs from gastrointestinal disease associated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. J Gen Intern Med 1996; 11: 461–9PubMedCrossRef
42.
Edelson JT, Tosteson ANA, Sax P. Cost-effectiveness of misoprostol for prophylaxis against nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug-induced gastrointestinal tract bleeding. JAMA 1990; 264: 41–7PubMedCrossRef
43.
Maetzel A, Bosi Ferraz M, Bombardier C. The cost-effectiveness of misoprostol in preventing serious gastrointestinal events associated with the use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. Arth Rheum 1998; 41: 16–25CrossRef
44.
Gabriel SE, Campion ME, O’Fallon WM. Patient preferences for nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug-related gastrointestinal complications and their prophylaxis. J Rheum 1993; 20: 258–61
45.
Johnson RE, Hornbrook MC, Hooker RS, et al. Analysis of the costs of NSAID-associated gastropathy: experience in a US health maintenance organization. Pharmacoeconomics 1997; 12 (1): 76–88PubMedCrossRef
46.
Kong SX, Hatoum HT, Zhao SZ, et al. Prevalence and cost of hospitalization for gastrointestinal complications related to peptic ulcers with bleeding or perforation: comparison of two national databases. Am J Managed Care 1998; 4: 399–409
47.
Curtis SP, Mukhopadhyay S, Ramey D, et al. Cardiovascular safety summary associated with the etoricoxib development program. Arthritis Rheum 2003; 48: S35–750CrossRef
48.
Revicki DA. Relationship between health utility and psychometric health status measures. Med Care 1992; 30: MS274–82CrossRef
49.
Stason WB, Weinstein MC. Allocation of resources to manage hypertension. N Engl J Med 1977; 296: 732–9PubMedCrossRef
50.
Nichol G, Kaul P, Huszti E, et al. Cost-effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with symptomatic heart failure. Ann Intern Med 2004; 141: 343–51PubMed
51.
Wong JB, Koff RS, Tine F, et al. Cost-effectiveness of interferon- alpha2b treatment for hepatitis B e antigen-positive chronic hepatitis B. Ann Intern Med 1995; 122: 664–75PubMed
52.
Ward S, Lloyd Jones M, Pandor A, et al. A systematic review and economic evaluation of statins for the prevention of coronary events. Health Technol Assess 2007; 11 (14): 1–160, iii-iv
53.
Clarke P, Gray A, Legood R, et al. The impact of diabetesrelated complications on healthcare costs: results from the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS Study No. 65). Diabet Med 2003; 20: 442–50PubMedCrossRef
54.
Mehta DK, editor. British national formulary 54: September 2007. London: BMJ Publishing Group and RPS Publishing, 2007
55.
McLeod C, Bagust A, Boland A, et al. Adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2007; 11 (28): 1–158
56.
57.
58.
59.
Tramer MR, Moore RA, Reynolds DJ, et al. Quantitative estimation of rare adverse events which follow a biological progression: a new model applied to chronic NSAID use. Pain 2000; 85: 169–82PubMedCrossRef
60.
Gilks WR, Richardson S, Spiegelhalter DJ. Interdisciplinary statistics. In: Gilks WR, Richardson S, Spiegelhalter DJ, editors. Markov chain Monte Carlo in practice. London: Chapman and Hall, 1996
61.
Sculpher M, Claxton K. Establishing the cost-effectiveness of new pharmaceuticals under conditions of uncertainty: when is there sufficient evidence? Value Health 2005; 8: 433–46PubMedCrossRef
62.
Boonen A, Chorus A, Miedema H, et al. Employment, work disability, and work days lost in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: a cross sectional study of Dutch patients. Ann Rheum Dis 2001; 60: 353–8PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Cost Effectiveness of Etoricoxib versus Celecoxib and Non-Selective NSAIDS in the Treatment of Ankylosing Spondylitis
Authors
Dr Jeroen P. Jansen
Sabine Gaugris
Ernest H. Choy
Andrew Ostor
Julian T. Nash
Wiro Stam
Publication date
01-04-2010
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 4/2010
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/11314690-000000000-00000

Other articles of this Issue 4/2010

PharmacoEconomics 4/2010 Go to the issue

Review Article

A Review of Methods Used in Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness Models of Diabetes Mellitus Treatment

Original Research Article

Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation in Ireland

Correspondence

Towards More Consistent Use of Generic Quality-of-Life Instruments

Original Research Article

Does the Funding Source Influence the Results in Economic Evaluations?

Review Article

Cost Effectiveness of Respiratory Syncytial Virus Prophylaxis