Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Osteoarthritis Oral Therapies: a Systematic Review
- First Online:
- 219 Downloads
Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) have been performed for oral non-disease-altering osteoarthritis (OA) treatments for well over a decade. During that period the methods for performing these analyses have evolved as pharmacoeconomic methods have advanced, new treatments have been introduced, and the knowledge of associated adverse events (AEs) has improved.
The objective of this systematic review was to trace the development of CEAs for oral non-disease-altering treatments in OA.
A systematic search for CEAs of OA oral treatments was performed of the English-language medical literature using the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE In-Process, EconLit, and Cochrane. Key requirements for inclusion were that the population described patients with OA or arthritis and that the analysis reported at least one incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Each identified publication was assessed for inclusion. Thirteen characteristics and all AEs appearing in each included CEA were extracted and organized. Reference lists from these CEAs were also searched. A chronology of key CEAs in the field was compiled, noting the characteristics that advanced the state of the art in modeling oral OA treatments.
Thirty publications of 28 CEAs were identified and evaluated. Developments in CEAs included an expanded set of comparators that broadened from non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) only to NSAIDs plus gastroprotective agents, cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, and opioids. In turn, AEs expanded from gastrointestinal (GI) events to also include cardiovascular (CV) and neurological events. Efficacy, which initially was presumed to be equivalent for all treatments, evolved to treatment-specific efficacies. Decision-tree analyses were generally replaced by Markov models or, occasionally, stochastic or discrete event simulation. Finally, outcomes have progressed from GI-centric measures to also include quality-adjusted life-years.
Methods used by CEAs of oral non-disease-altering OA treatments have evolved in response to changing treatments with different safety profiles and efficacies as well as technical advances in the application of decision science to health care.
- 1.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevalence of disabilities and associated health conditions among adults—United States, 2005. MMWR. 2009;58(16):421–6.Google Scholar
- 2.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevalence of doctor-diagnosed arthritis and arthritis-attributable activity limitation—United States, 2007–2009. MMWR. 2010;59(39):1261–5.Google Scholar
- 3.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National and state medical expenditures and lost earnings attributable to arthritis and other rheumatic conditions—United States, 2003. MMWR. 2007;56(1):4–7.Google Scholar
- 13.Chen Y-F, Jobanputra P, Barton P, et al. Cyclooxygenase-2 selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (etodolac, meloxicam, celecoxib, rofecoxib, etoricoxib, valdecoxib and lumiracoxib) for osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2008;12(11):1–278, iii.Google Scholar
- 14.Brown TJ, Hooper L, Elliott RA, et al. A comparison of the cost-effectiveness of five strategies for the prevention of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced gastrointestinal toxicity: a systematic review with economic modelling. Health Technol Assess. 2006;10(38):iii–iv, xi–xiii, 1–183.Google Scholar
- 15.Drummond M, Maetzel A, Gabriel S, et al. Towards a reference case for use in future economic evaluations of interventions in osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol. 2003;30(Suppl 68):26–30.Google Scholar
- 17.Maetzel A, Krahn M, Naglie G. The cost-effectiveness of celecoxib and rofecoxib in patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment; 2001.Google Scholar
- 20.National Collaborating Centre for Chronic Conditions. Osteoarthritis: national clinical guideline for care and management in adults. Appendix D. London: Royal College of Physicians; 2008.Google Scholar
- 22.Rafter N, Milne R, Jackson R. PHARMAC Technology Assessment Report No. 55—listing rofecoxib and celecoxib in the Pharmaceutical Schedule. 2003.Google Scholar
- 25.Pettitt D, Goldstein JL, McGuire A, et al. Overview of the Arthritis Cost Consequence Evaluation System (ACCES): a pharmacoeconomic model for celecoxib. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2000;39(Suppl 2):33–42; discussion 57–9Google Scholar
- 43.Contreras-Hernández I, Mould-Quevedo JF, Torres-González R, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis for joint pain treatment in patients with osteoarthritis treated at the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS): comparison of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) vs. cyclooxygenase-2 selective inhibitors. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2008;6:21.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 52.Silverstein FE, Graham DY, Senior JR, et al. Misoprostol reduces serious gastrointestinal complications in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 1995;123(4):241–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 53.Food and Drug Administration. Celebrex Advisory Committee Briefing Document. 1998. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/98/transcpt/3480t1.rtf. Accessed 8 Jul 2000.
- 57.Network PDR. Red Book: pharmacy’s fundamental reference. Montvale: PDR Network, LLC.; 2011.Google Scholar
- 58.Food and Drug Administration. Vioxx (Rofecoxib) tablets review. 1999.Google Scholar
- 59.Food and Drug Administration. Celebrex (celecoxib) capsules review: osteoarthritis statistical review. 1998.Google Scholar
- 64.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;284(10):1247–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 65.Food and Drug Administration. Celebrex capsules (celecoxib) medical officer review NDA 20-998/S-009. 2000.Google Scholar
- 66.Food and Drug Administration. VIOXX tablets: VIOXX oral suspension (rofecoxib). VIOXX Gastrointestinal Outcomes Research Study (VIGOR) briefing information. NDA 21-052. 2001.Google Scholar
- 69.Food and Drug Administration. Medical officer’s advisory committee GI briefing document. Division of Anti-inflammatory, Analgesic and Ophthalmologic Drug Products: HFD-550. NDA 21-042. 2001.Google Scholar
- 71.Watson D, Yu C, Bolognese J, et al. Improved upper-GI safety with etoricoxib compared with non selective cyclooxygenase inhibitors (NSAIDs) [abstract]. Arthritis Rheum. 2003;48(Suppl 9):S72.Google Scholar
- 76.Simon LS, White WB, MacDonald TM, et al. Cardiovascular safety of celecoxib: a meta-analysis of 41 clinical studies in 44,300 patients. Arthritis Rheum. 2005;52(Suppl 9):S406–7.Google Scholar
- 78.Kosinski M, Schein J, Kavanagh S. Health-related quality-of life (HRQoL) outcomes for patients with chronic osteoarthritis (OA) pain of the hip or knee treated with once-daily OROS hydromorphone versus ER oxycodone [poster 818]. In: 25th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Pain Society, San Antonio, TX; 2006.Google Scholar
- 82.Pincus T, Koch G, Lei H, et al. Patient Preference for Placebo, Acetaminophen (paracetamol) or Celecoxib Efficacy Studies (PACES): two randomised, double blind, placebo controlled, crossover clinical trials in patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004;63(8):931–9.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 86.Schnitzer TJ, Burmester GR, Mysler E, et al. Comparison of lumiracoxib with naproxen and ibuprofen in the Therapeutic Arthritis Research and Gastrointestinal Event Trial (TARGET), reduction in ulcer complications: randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2004;364(9435):665–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 91.Laine L, Curtis SP, Cryer B, et al. 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(9560):465–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 93.Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. HCUPnet: a tool for identifying, tracking, and analyzing national hospital statistics. Available from: http://hcupnet.ahrq.gov/. Accessed 5 Oct 2012.
- 94.Wielage RC, Samsa GP, Klein TM, et al. A maximum likelihood simulation technique for estimating adverse event rates from published trials PRM145. In: International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 15th Annual European Congress. Berlin; 2012. Available from: http://www.ispor.org/research_pdfs/42/pdffiles/PRM145.pdf. Accessed 8 Apr 2013.
- 100.Knill-Jones RP, McGhee SM, MacDonald FC. An economic evaluation of enteric-coated and standard formulations of naproxen from a gastrointestinal perspective. Br J Med Econ. 1994;7:185–96.Google Scholar
- 101.Jansen RB, Capri S, Nuijten MJC, et al. Economic evaluation of meloxicam (7.5 mg) versus sustained release diclofenac (100 mg) treatment for osteoarthritis: a cross-national assessment for France, Italy and the UK. Br J Med Econ. 1997;11:9–22.Google Scholar