, Volume 29, Issue 5, pp 387–401 | Cite as

Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Review Article


Traditionally, half of the direct costs associated with chronic inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) [Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC)] have related to hospital inpatient treatment for a sub-group of more severely affected, often therapy-resistant individuals. The advent of effective but relatively expensive biological agents has increased the contribution of drugs to overall medical care costs. This has focussed interest on the relative cost effectiveness of rival therapies for IBD and, in particular, on the affordability of long-term biological therapy. The purpose of this article is to review the available literature on this topic and to identify areas for future research.

Head-to-head trials of competing treatment options are uncommon and clinical trials have seldom addressed cost effectiveness. In UC, models have explored the cost utility of ‘high-’ versus ‘standard-’ dose 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) therapy and the theoretical impact of improved adherence with once-daily formulations. In CD, cost-utility models for anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) drugs versus standard care have suggested consistently that incremental benefits are achieved at increased overall cost. However, studies of varying design have produced a wide spectrum of incremental cost-effectiveness ra tio estimates, which highlights the challenges and limitations of existing modelling techniques.


  1. 1.
    Bodger K. Cost of illness of Crohn’s disease. Pharmacoeconomics 2002; 20 (10): 639–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Luces C, Bodger K. Economic burden of inflammatory bowel disease: a UK perspective. Expert Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res 2006; 6 (4): 471–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yu AP, Cabanilla LA, Wu EQ, et al. The costs of Crohn’s disease in the United States and other Western countries: a systematic review. Curr Med Res Opin 2008; 24 (2): 319–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jacobsen BA, Fallingborg J, Rasmussen HH, et al. Increase in incidence and prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease in northern Denmark: a population-based study, 1978–2002. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006; 18 (6): 601–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kappelman MD, Rifas-Shiman SL, Kleinman K, et al. The prevalence and geographic distribution of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis in the United States. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007; 5 (12): 1424–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hay AR, Hay JW. Inflammatory bowel disease: medical cost algorithms. J Clin Gastroenterol 1992; 14 (4): 318–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Silverstein MD, Loftus EV, Sandborn WJ, et al. Clinical course and costs of care for Crohn’s disease: Markov model analysis of a population-based cohort. Gastroenterology 1999; 117 (1): 49–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bassi A, Dodd S, Williamson P, et al. Cost of illness of inflammatory bowel disease in the UK: a single centre retrospective study. Gut 2004; 53 (10): 1471–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bickston SJ, Waters HC, Dabbous O, et al. Administrative claims analysis of all-cause annual costs of care and resource utilization by age category for ulcerative colitis patients. J Manag Care Pharm 2008; 14 (4): 352–62PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Blumenstein I, Bock H, Weber C, et al. Health care and cost of medication for inflammatory bowel disease in the Rhein- Main region, Germany: a multicenter, prospective, internet-based study. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2008; 14 (1): 53–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cohen RD, Larson LR, Roth JM, et al. The cost of hospitalization in Crohn’s disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2000; 95 (2): 524–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gibson TB, Ng E, Ozminkowski RJ, et al. The direct and indirect cost burden of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. J Occup Environ Med 2008; 50 (11): 1261–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grogan JE, Smith MC. The economic cost of ulcerative colitis: a national estimate for 1968. Inquiry 1973; 10 (2): 61–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hay JW, Hay AR. Inflammatory bowel disease: costs-ofillness. J Clin Gastroenterol 1992; 14 (4): 309–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Odes S, Vardi H, Friger M, et al. Cost analysis and cost determinants in a European inflammatory bowel disease inception cohort with 10 years of follow-up evaluation. Gastroenterology 2006; 131 (3): 719–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stark R, Konig HH, Leidl R. Costs of inflammatory bowel disease in Germany. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (8): 797–814PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Blomqvist P, Ekbom A. Inflammatory bowel diseases: health care and costs in Sweden in 1994. Scand J Gastroenterol 1997; 32 (11): 1134–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kappelman MD, Rifas-Shiman SL, Porter CQ, et al. Direct health care costs of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis in US children and adults. Gastroenterology 2008; 135 (6): 1907–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Williams JG, Cheung WY, Russell IT, et al. Open access follow up for inflammatory bowel disease: pragmatic randomised trial and cost effectiveness study. BMJ 2000; 320 (7234): 544–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Buckland A, Bodger K. The cost-utility of high dose oral mesalazine for moderately active ulcerative colitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2008; 28 (11-12): 1287–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hanauer SB, Sandborn WJ, Dallaire C, et al. Delayed-release oral mesalamine 4.8 g/day (800 mg tablets) compared to 2.4 g/day (400 mg tablets) for the treatment of mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis: the ASCEND I trial. Can J Gastroenterol 2007; 21: 827–34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hanauer SB, Sandborn WJ, Kornbluth A, et al. Delayed-release oral mesalamine at 4.8 g/day (800 mg tablet) for the treatment of moderately active ulcerative colitis: the ASCEND II trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2005; 100: 2478–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hanauer SB, Sandborn WJ, Kombluth A, et al. Modified release oral mesalazine 4.8 g/day (800 mg tablet) versus 2.4 g/day (400 mg tablet) for treatment of moderately active ulcerative colitis: combined analysis of two randomised, double-blind controlled trials. Gastroenterology 2005; 128 (4 Suppl. 2): A74–5, 492Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Brereton N, Bodger K, Kamm MA, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of MMX mesalazine compared with mesalazine in the treatment of mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis fromaUKperspective. J Med Econ 2010 Mar; 13 (1): 148–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kamm MA, Sandborn WJ, Gassull M, et al. Once-daily, high-concentration MMX mesalamine in active ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology 2007; 132: 66–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yen EF, Kane SV, Ladabaum U. Cost-effectiveness of 5-aminosalicylic acid therapy for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103 (12): 3094–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mackowiak JI. A two-stage decision analysis to assess the cost of 5-aminosalicylic acid failure and the economics of balsalazide versus mesalamine in the treatment of ulcerative colitis. Manag Care Interface 2006; 19 (10): 39–46, 56PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Manson SC, Brown RE, Cerulli A, et al. The cumulative burden of oral corticosteroid side effects and the economic implications of steroid use. Respir Med 2009; 103 (7): 975–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kreck S, Klaus J, Leidl R, et al. Cost effectiveness of ibandronate for the prevention of fractures in inflammatory bowel disease-related osteoporosis: cost-utility analysis using a Markov model. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (4): 311–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Behm BW, Bickston SJ. Efficacy of infliximab for luminal and fistulizing Crohn’s disease and in ulcerative colitis. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol 2007; 10 (3): 171–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rutgeerts P, Sandborn WJ, Feagan BG, et al. Infliximab for induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis. N Engl J Med 2005 Dec 8; 353 (23): 2462–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tsai HH, Punekar YS, Morris J, et al. A model of the long-term cost effectiveness of scheduled maintenance treatment with infliximab for moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2008; 28 (10): 1230–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Inadomi JM. Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer surveillance in ulcerative colitis. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl 2003; (237): 17–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Provenzale D, Onken J. Surveillance issues in inflammatory bowel disease: ulcerative colitis. J Clin Gastroenterol 2001; 32 (2): 99–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Provenzale D, Wong JB, Onken JE, et al. Performing a costeffectiveness analysis: surveillance of patients with ulcerative colitis. Am J Gastroenterol 1998; 93 (6): 872–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Messori A, Brignola C, Trallori G, et al. Effectiveness of 5-aminosalicylic acid for maintaining remission in patients with Crohn’s disease: a meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 1994; 89 (5): 692–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lofberg R, Rutgeerts P, Malchow H, et al. Budesonide prolongs time to relapse in ileal and ileocaecal Crohn’s disease: a placebo controlled one year study. Gut 1996; 39 (1): 82–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Noble I, Brown R, Danielsson A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of budesonide Controlled Ileal Release (CIR) capsules as maintenance therapy versus no maintenance therapy for ileocaecal Crohn’s disease in Sweden. Clin Drug Investig 1998; 15 (2): 123–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Verma S, Brown S, Kirkwood B, et al. Polymeric versus elemental diet as primary treatment in active Crohn’s disease: a randomized, double-blind trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2000; 95 (3): 735–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Takahashi H, Ando T, Watanabe O, et al. Usefulness of an elemental diet in Crohn’s disease. Inflammopharmacology 2007; 15 (1): 15–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ofman J, Koretz RL. Nutritional support: efficacy and costeffectiveness. In: Bodger K, Daly MJ, Heatley RV, editors. Clinical economics in gastroenterology. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 2000: 188–219Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Akobeng AK, Zachos M. Tumor necrosis factor-alpha antibody for induction of remission in Crohn’s disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; (1): CD003574Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Behm BW, Bickston SJ. Tumor necrosis factor-alpha antibody for maintenance of remission in Crohn’s disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008; (1): CD006893Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Peyrin-Biroulet L, Deltenre P, de SN, et al. Efficacy and safety of tumor necrosis factor antagonists in Crohn’s disease: meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 6 (6): 644–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Joint Formulary Committee. British national formulary. 53 ed. London: British Medical Association and Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, 2008Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hanauer SB, Feagan BG, Lichtenstein GR, et al. Maintenance infliximab for Crohn’s disease: the ACCENT I randomised trial. Lancet 2002; 359 (9317): 1541–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lichtenstein GR, Yan S, Bala M, et al. Remission in patients with Crohn’s disease is associated with improvement in employment and quality of life and a decrease in hospitalizations and surgeries. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99 (1): 91–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rutgeerts P, Feagan BG, Lichtenstein GR, et al. Comparison of scheduled and episodic treatment strategies of infliximab in Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology 2004; 126 (2): 402–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sands BE, Anderson FH, Bernstein CN, et al. Infliximab maintenance therapy for fistulizing Crohn’s disease. N Engl J Med 2004; 350 (9): 876–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Lichtenstein GR, Yan S, Bala M, et al. Infliximab maintenance treatment reduces hospitalizations, surgeries, and procedures in fistulizing Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology 2005; 128 (4): 862–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Colombel JF, Sandborn WJ, Rutgeerts P, et al. Adalimumab for maintenance of clinical response and remission in patients with Crohn’s disease: the CHARM trial. Gastroenterology 2007; 132 (1): 52–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Feagan BG, Panaccione R, Sandborn WJ, et al. Effects of adalimumab therapy on incidence of hospitalization and surgery in Crohn’s disease: results from the CHARM study. Gastroenterology 2008; 135 (5): 1493–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Jewell DP, Satsangi J, Lobo A, et al. Infliximab use in Crohn’s disease: impact on health care resources in the UK. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2005; 17 (10): 1047–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Rubenstein JH, Chong RY, Cohen RD. Infliximab decreases resource use among patients with Crohn’s disease. J Clin Gastroenterol 2002; 35 (2): 151–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Schnitzler F, Fidder H, Ferrante M, et al. Long-term outcome of treatment with infliximab in 614 patients with Crohn’s disease: results from a single-centre cohort. Gut 2009; 58 (4): 492–500PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wailoo A, Tosh J. Use of tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFA) inhibitors (adalimumab and infliximab) for Crohn’s disease. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2010 Jan 1Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Arseneau KO, Cohn SM, Cominelli F, et al. Cost-utility of initial medical management for Crohn’s disease perianal fistulae. Gastroenterology 2001; 120 (7): 1640–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Marshall JK, Blackhouse G, Goeree R, et al. Clinical and economic assessment: infliximab for the treatment of Crohn’s disease: technology overview. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA), 2002Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Clark W, Raftery J, Song F, et al. Systematic review and economic evaluation of the effectiveness of infliximab for the treatment of Crohn’s disease. Health Technol Assess 2003; 7 (3): 1–67PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Jaisson-Hot I, Flourie B, Descos L, et al. Management for severe Crohn’s disease: a lifetime cost-utility analysis. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004; 20 (3): 274–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Lindsay J, Punekar YS, Morris J, et al. Health-economic analysis: cost-effectiveness of scheduled maintenance treatment with infliximab for Crohn’s disease: modelling outcomes in active luminal and fistulizing disease in adults. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2008; 28 (1): 76–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Loftus Jr EV, Johnson SJ, Yu AP, et al. Cost-effectiveness of adalimumab for the maintenance of remission in patients with Crohn’s disease. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009 Nov; 21 (11): 1302–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Bodger K, Kikuchi T, Hughes D. Cost-effectiveness of biological therapy for Crohn’s disease: Markov cohort analyses incorporating United Kingdom patient-level cost data. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2009; 30 (3): 265–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Ghosh S. Maintenance therapy versus episodic therapy with infliximab for Crohn’s disease. Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004; 1 (2): 80–1PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Appraisal consultation document: infliximab (review) and adalimumab for the treatment of Crohn’s disease (including a review of technology appraisal guidance 40). London: NICE, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2010 Nov 25]Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Lichtenstein GR. Infliximab: lifetime use for maintenance is appropriate in Crohn’s Disease. PRO: maintenance therapy is superior to episodic therapy. Am J Gastroenterol 2005; 100 (7): 1433–5Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Loftus EV. Infliximab: lifetime use for maintenance is appropriate in Crohn’s Disease. CON: “lifetime use” is an awfully long time. Am J Gastroenterol 2005; 100 (7): 1435–8Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Wu EQ, Mulani PM, Yu AP, et al. Loss of treatment response to infliximab maintenance therapy in Crohn’s disease: a payor perspective. Value Health 2008; 11 (5): 820–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Kelly CJ, Mir FA. Economics of biological therapies. BMJ 2009; 339: b3276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Office of Fair Trading. OFT report recommends reform to UK drug pricing scheme [press release; online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2010 Nov 25]Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    UK NHS, Department of Health. Equity and excellence: liberating the NHS. London: HMSO, 2010 Jul [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2010 Nov 25]Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Baert F, Caprilli R, Angelucci E. Medical therapy for Crohn’s disease: top-down or step-up? Dig Dis 2007; 25 (3): 260–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Hanauer SB. Crohn’s disease: step up or top down therapy. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2003; 17 (1): 131–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Colombel JF, Sandborn WJ, Reinisch W, et al. Infliximab, azathioprine, or combination therapy for Crohn’s disease. N Engl J Med 2010; 362 (15): 1383–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GastroenterologyUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK
  2. 2.Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Clinical Sciences CentreUniversity Hospital AintreeLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations