Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20222755›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics2010

Cost effectiveness of etoricoxib versus celecoxib and non-selective NSAIDS in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis.

Jeroen P Jansen, Sabine Gaugris, Ernest H Choy, Andrew Ostor, Julian T Nash, Wiro Stam

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01619150 (A Single Center, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled 2-way Crossover Study to Investigate the Mechanism of Action of Etoricoxib in Subjects With Osteoarthritis Knee Pain.), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT01619150 phase2completednot on this mapstarted 2012, after this paper: background citation

A Single Center, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled 2-way Crossover Study to Investigate the Mechanism of Action of Etoricoxib in Subjects With Osteoarthritis Knee Pain.

TypeinterventionalSponsorC4PainRan2012 to 2013Enrolled39ConditionsOsteoarthritisArmsEtoricoxib, followed by placebo (matching tablet, without active ingredient), Placebo (matching tablet, without active ingredient), followed by etoricoxib
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Jeroen P JansenMapi Values, 133 Portland Street, Boston, MA 02114, USA. jeroen.jansen@mapivalues.com
Sabine Gaugris
Ernest H Choy
Andrew Ostor
Julian T Nash
Wiro Stam
Mapi Research Trust · FRAddenbrooke's Hospital · GBKing's College Hospital · GBMerck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA (United States) · USUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To evaluate the cost effectiveness of etoricoxib (90 mg/day) relative to celecoxib (200 or 400 mg/day), and the non-selective NSAIDs naproxen (1000 mg/day) and diclofenac (150 mg/day) in the initial treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) from the UK NHS perspective. A Bayesian cost-effectiveness model was developed to estimate the costs and benefits associated with initiating AS treatment with etoricoxib, celecoxib, diclofenac or naproxen. Efficacy, safety and medical resource and cost data were obtained from the literature. The obtained efficacy estimates were synthesized with a mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Treatment benefit and degree of disease activity, as reflected with Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) scores, were related to QALYs and AS-specific costs (related to BASDAI). Other cost outcomes related to drug acquisition, and gastrointestinal and cardiovascular safety. Uncertainty in the source data was translated into uncertainty in cost-effectiveness estimates and therefore decision uncertainty. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5% per annum. There was a >98% probability that treatment with etoricoxib results in greater QALYs than the other interventions. Over a 30-year time horizon, starting AS treatment with etoricoxib was associated with about 0.4 more QALYs than the other interventions. At 2 years there was a 77% probability that etoricoxib had the lowest cost. This increased to >99% at 30 years. Etoricoxib is expected to save 13 620 UK pounds (year 2007 values) relative to celecoxib (200/400 mg), 9957 UK pounds relative to diclofenac and 9863 UK pounds relative to naproxen. For a willingness-to-pay ceiling ratio of 20 000 UK pounds per QALY, there was a >97% probability that etoricoxib was the most cost-effective treatment. Additional analysis with different assumptions, including celecoxib 200 mg, and ignoring cost-offsets associated with improvements in disease activity, supported these findings. This economic evaluation suggests that, from the UK NHS perspective, etoricoxib is the most cost-effective initial NSAID treatment for AS patients.

Indexed as

Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalBayes TheoremCelecoxibCost-Benefit AnalysisCyclooxygenase 2 InhibitorsDiclofenacDrug CostsDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsEtoricoxibHumansMarkov ChainsMeta-Analysis as TopicModels, EconomicNaproxenPyrazolesPyridinesAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalCelecoxibCyclooxygenase 2 InhibitorsDiclofenacEtoricoxibNaproxenPyrazolesPyridinesSulfonamidesSulfones

Identifiers

PMID20222755
OpenAlexW1976481920

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.