Cost-Utility Analysis of Biologic Treatments for Moderate-to-Severe Crohn's Disease

Study Objective To compare the cost versus utility of four guideline-recommended biologic treatmentsinfliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, and natalizumabfor the treatment of Crohn's disease from a United States payer perspective. Design Cost-utility decision analytic model using a Monte Carlo simulation of 10,000 cases. Data Source Published primary and tertiary literature. Patients Patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease, as categorized by the Crohn's Disease Activity Index, that failed to respond to standard therapy and who were treatment naive to biologics. Measurements and Main Results The decision analytic model base case was a 35-year-old patient weighing 70 kg with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease. Therapeutic efficacy data were obtained from published clinical trials. Online prescription drug, hospitalization data, and Current Procedural Terminology codes were used to estimate cost. Utility measures were estimated using published data obtained from patients with Crohn's disease. The time end point used for the model was 54 weeks. The analysis demonstrated considerable overlap in quality-adjusted life years gained with the four agents (i.e., mean values across four treatments 0.79?0.80). Although infliximab had the lowest median cost, there was overlap in the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) compared with the other three biologic products: mean (95% CI) cost for infliximab $22,663 ($19,105?26,433), adalimumab $27,515 ($23,796?31,584), certolizumab pegol $29,062 ($24,952?33,882), and natalizumab $31,166 ($25,915?37,195). However, the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve demonstrated that infliximab had the most scenarios (95.2%) when it was the most cost-effective biologic therapy using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life years gained. Conclusion Patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease that failed to respond to standard treatment should preferentially receive infliximab as their initial biologic treatment, since this agent had the highest probability of being the most cost-effective therapy compared with the other biologic treatment options.