12.08.2013 Views

A systematic review of the effectiveness of adalimumab

A systematic review of the effectiveness of adalimumab

A systematic review of the effectiveness of adalimumab

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

162<br />

Appendix 8<br />

TABLE 78 Choi et al., 2002 159 (cont’d)<br />

Outcome measures used in The occurrence <strong>of</strong> toxicity related to each <strong>the</strong>rapy and ACR response criteria (ACR20 or<br />

economic evaluations ACR70). ICERs were for per patient achieving ACR20 or ACR70WR<br />

Direction <strong>of</strong> result with In <strong>the</strong> base-case analysis using ei<strong>the</strong>r ACR20 or ACR70WR for MTX-naïve RA, MTX and SSZ<br />

appropriate quadrant both cost less and were more effective (SE quadrant: cost saving) than no second-line<br />

location <strong>the</strong>rapy. SSZ compared with MTX at ACR20 was in <strong>the</strong> NE quadrant (more costly but also<br />

more effective). Using ACR70, SSZ compared with MTX cost more but was less effective<br />

(NW quadrant). LEF was also ruled out by simple dominance when compared with MTX<br />

(i.e. NW quadrant). Compared with MTX and SSZ, etanercept was both more expensive<br />

and more effective (i.e. NE quadrant):<br />

etanercept vs SSZ: $41,900 per ACR20<br />

etanercept vs MTX: $40,800 per ACR70WR<br />

Statistical analysis for Not undertaken<br />

patient-level stochastic data<br />

Appropriateness <strong>of</strong> statistical NA<br />

analysis<br />

Uncertainty around Not undertaken<br />

cost-<strong>effectiveness</strong> expressed<br />

Appropriateness <strong>of</strong> method NA<br />

dealing with uncertainty<br />

around cost <strong>effectiveness</strong><br />

Sensitivity analysis Yes: sensitivity analyses were performed to determine <strong>the</strong> robustness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> base-case<br />

results to variations <strong>of</strong> baseline estimates. Three-way sensitivity analyses were also done to<br />

determine robustness <strong>of</strong> base-case results to variations <strong>of</strong> more than one key variable,<br />

including <strong>the</strong> main variable <strong>of</strong> triple <strong>the</strong>rapy efficacy<br />

Modelling inputs and Yes<br />

techniques appropriate<br />

Authors’ conclusions MTX is cost-effective (cost savings vs <strong>the</strong> no second-line treatment option) for MTX-naïve<br />

RA in achieving ACR20 or ACR70WR over a 6-month period. The relative cost-<strong>effectiveness</strong><br />

between SSZ and MTX cannot be determined with reasonable certainty, but SSZ <strong>the</strong>rapy<br />

appears to be as cost-effective as MTX (cost saving) in achieving ACR outcomes over a<br />

6-month period. The most efficacious option, etanercept, incurs higher incremental costs per<br />

ACR20 or ACR70WR than o<strong>the</strong>r options analysed. Whe<strong>the</strong>r etanercept compared with MTX<br />

is cost-effective depends on whe<strong>the</strong>r >$40,000 per ACR20 or ACR70WR over a 6-month<br />

period is considered acceptable<br />

NE, north-east; NW, north-west; SE, south-east.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!