ArticlePharmacoEconomics2018
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Lesinurad/Allopurinol Versus Febuxostat for the Management of Gout/Hyperuricemia in Italy.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Treatment sequence patterns of urate-lowering therapy in Korean patients with gout: A common data model-based study.PloS one · 2026Article
- Dioscin regulates oxidative stress and autophagy in uric acid-induced HK-2 cells through the P62-KEAP1-NRF2 signaling pathway.BMC nephrology · 2025Article
- Article
- Second-line treatment with lesinurad and allopurinol versus febuxostat for management of hyperuricemia: a cost-effectiveness analysis for Spanish patients.Clinical rheumatology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUntil very recently the only therapeutic alternative for the management of patients affected by gout/hyperuricemia that did not respond to a first-line treatment based on allopurinol alone or who cannot tolerate allopurinol was febuxostat, a xanthine oxidase non-purine-selective inhibitor. Lately, however, a new therapeutic alternative has become available for the management of this pathology: lesinurad, a urate transporter inhibitor.
objectiveTo objective of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of lesinurad/allopurinol in comparison with febuxostat as a second-line therapeutic strategy for the management of patients affected by gout and hyperuricemia that did not respond to a first-line therapy based on allopurinol alone.
methodsA Markov model was built based on the natural history of the pathology; patients entered the model according to their level of serum uric acid concentration and flowed across it according to their response to the therapy. The analysis was carried out considering the perspective of the Italian National Health Service on a lifetime horizon and 6-month cycles. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were discounted at a 3.5% yearly rate. The results of the model were expressed in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Both a one-way and a multi-way Monte-Carlo analysis were carried out in order to check the robustness of the results achieved.
resultsThe ICER derived from the comparison was equal to €77.53/QALY on the lifetime horizon, as there was a higher level of costs associated with the combination as compared with febuxostat (€10,658.27 vs. €10,645.87, for a differential of €12.40) and a higher level of QALYs achieved (7.77 vs. 7.61, for a differential of 0.16).
conclusionsThe lesinurad/allopurinol combination is recommended for the treatment of patients affected by gout/hyperuricemia in the Italian Health System as it appears to be cost effective and thus sustainable for the Italian healthcare sector.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.