Cost‐Utility Analysis of Infliximab with Standard Care versus Standard Care Alone for Induction and Maintenance Treatment of Patients with Ulcerative Colitis in Poland

Abstract

Treatment with infliximab/standard care instead of standard care alone resulted in additional QALYs but also additional costs. The incremental cost per QALY gained of infliximab/standard care compared with standard care alone exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold in Poland (equivalent to ~$33,400).

Cost-effectiveness of biological treatment of ulcerative colitis – a systematic review

“…The results of the conducted analyses for biological treatment in Canada were not consistent – one analysis [26] showed that infliximab is a cost-effective treatment option compared with standard care and one [27] proved that anti-TNF-α therapies are not cost-effective compared with standard care. Conclusions for all three economic analyses, conducted for three different biologicals used in Poland, are consistent – infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab turned out not to be cost-effective compared with standard care alone [21–23]. …”

“…QALY was the endpoint of eight analyses [18, 19, 21–23, 25–27], remission and response was used in one study [24], and mucosal healing in another one [20]. The most commonly assessed biological agent was infliximab – eight studies [18–20, 23–27].…”

“…QALY was the endpoint of eight analyses [18, 19, 21–23, 25–27], remission and response was used in one study [24], and mucosal healing in another one [20]. The most commonly assessed biological agent was infliximab – eight studies [18–20, 23–27]. Adalimumab was included in four economic evaluations [20, 21, 24, 27], golimumab in two [22, 24], while only one analysis was found for vedolizumab [20].…”

“…The comparators included for biological agents were: standard/usual care/conventional therapy [19, 21–27], cyclosporine [18, 19], surgical treatment [18, 19], and another biological agent [20, 24]. The time horizon varied from 1 year [18, 19, 20, 24], through five [26, 27] and 10 years [25, 26], to 30 years [21–23]. Table I presents the characteristics of the included studies.…”

“…The following economic analyses identified in our review were not included in other systematic reviews: Stawowczyk et al [21], Stawowczyk et al [22], Stawowczyk et al [23], Toor et al [24], and Yokomizo et al [20]. …”