...
首页> 外文期刊>Health Economics Review >The cost-effectiveness of celecoxib versus non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs plus proton-pump inhibitors in the treatment of osteoarthritis in Saudi Arabia
【24h】

The cost-effectiveness of celecoxib versus non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs plus proton-pump inhibitors in the treatment of osteoarthritis in Saudi Arabia

机译:塞来昔布与非甾体类抗炎药联合质子泵抑制剂在沙特阿拉伯治疗骨关节炎中的成本效益

获取原文

摘要

Background Cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors including celecoxib are as effective as non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (ns-NSAIDs) in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) and have less gastrointestinal toxicity. Although they are associated with higher treatment costs, COX-2 inhibitors may simultaneously reduce costs associated with adverse events, hence, their overall economic benefit should be assessed. Objective To evaluate the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of celecoxib versus ns-NSAIDs, with/without proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) co-therapy, for managing OA in Saudi Arabian subjects aged ≥65?years. Methods The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence health economic model from the UK, updated with relative risks of adverse events using CONDOR trial data, was adapted. Patients received celecoxib or ns-NSAIDs, with/without omeprazole. The effectiveness measure was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained per patient. The analysis was conducted from the patient’s perspective. Frequencies of resource use for adverse events were based on data collected in July 2012 from seven private hospitals in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to construct cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs). Results Over a 6-month treatment duration, QALYs gained per patient were higher with celecoxib (0.37) and celecoxib plus PPI (0.40) versus comparators. Ibuprofen plus PPI showed the lowest expected cost per patient (US$ 1,314.50 versus US$ 1,422.80 with celecoxib plus PPI and US$ 1,543.50 with celecoxib). Celecoxib plus PPI was the most cost-effective option with an ICER of US$ 1,805.00, followed by celecoxib (ICER, US$ 7,633.33) versus ibuprofen plus PPI. Over 2- and 5-year treatment durations, celecoxib plus PPI, and celecoxib, showed higher QALYs gained/patient and lower ICERs versus comparators. These ICERs are <1 gross domestic product/capita in Saudi Arabia in 2013 (US$ 25,961). CEACs over 6?months’ treatment showed a significantly higher likelihood that celecoxib plus PPI and celecoxib alone would be more cost effective versus comparators once the willingness to pay is over US$ 2,000.00. Conclusion After considering new adverse event risks, celecoxib with/without PPI co-therapy was deemed very cost effective for medium- and long-term use in Saudi Arabian OA patients aged ≥65?years.
机译:背景技术包括celecoxib的环氧合酶(COX)-2抑制剂在治疗骨关节炎(OA)方面与非选择性非甾体抗炎药(ns-NSAIDs)一样有效,并且胃肠道毒性较小。尽管它们与更高的治疗费用相关,但COX-2抑制剂可同时降低与不良事件相关的费用,因此,应评估其总体经济效益。目的评估塞洛昔布与ns-NSAIDs联合使用/不使用质子泵抑制剂(PPI)联合治疗在≥65岁的沙特阿拉伯受试者中OA的成本效益比(ICER)。方法采用英国CONDOR试验数据,对英国国立卫生研究院的健康经济模型进行了更新,并更新了不良事件的相对风险。患者接受塞来昔布或ns-NSAIDs联合或不联合奥美拉唑。有效性指标是每位患者获得的质量调整生命年(QALYs)。分析是从患者的角度进行的。不良事件的资源使用频率基于2012年7月从沙特阿拉伯吉达的7家私立医院收集的数据。进行概率敏感性分析以构建成本效益可接受性曲线(CEAC)。结果在6个月的治疗期间,塞来昔布(0.37)和塞来昔布加PPI(0.40)的人均较对照者获得的QALY更高。布洛芬加PPI的人均预期费用最低(塞来昔布加PPI为1,314.50美元,塞来昔布为1,422.80美元,塞来昔布为1,543.50美元)。塞来昔布加PPI是最具成本效益的选择,ICER为1,805.00美元,其次是塞来昔布(ICER,7,633.33美元),而布洛芬加PPI最高。与比较者相比,塞来昔布加PPI和塞来昔布在2年和5年的治疗期间显示出更高的QALY /患者和更低的ICER。这些ICER在2013年的人均国内生产总值<1(25,961美元)。超过6个月的CEAC治疗表明,一旦支付意愿超过2,000.00美元,塞来昔布加PPI和塞来昔布将比同业更具有成本效益。结论在考虑了新的不良事件风险后,对于年龄≥65岁的沙特阿拉伯OA患者,中/长期使用塞来昔布进行/不进行PPI联合治疗被认为具有很高的成本效益。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号