ArticleRheumatology and therapy2018
Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Golimumab in the Treatment of Non-Radiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis in Scotland.
Article in Rheumatology and therapy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Targeted therapies and conventional care for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis in China: a cost-effectiveness analysis based on the network-meta analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Value-Based Healthcare in Rheumatology: Axial Spondyloarthritis and Beyond.Current rheumatology reports · 2021Review
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
introductionThe aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of golimumab for the treatment of non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) vs. conventional therapy and other tumor necrosis factor inhibitors from the Scottish payer perspective.
methodsA model comprising a short-term decision tree and a long-term Markov model was developed to compare cost-effectiveness (incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) for patients in Scotland with nr-axSpA treated by conventional therapy, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, or golimumab for a lifetime period. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to identify clinical and safety data for treatments and synthesize the available evidence into relative treatment effects between comparators. The probability of patients achieving an Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society 20/40% response criteria (ASAS20/ASAS40) or a 50% improvement in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index score (BASDAI50) at week 12 was obtained from the NMA for each of the comparators. Baseline health state utilities were based on the EQ-5D questionnaire collected in the golimumab GO-AHEAD study. The cost of treatment was calculated based on drug acquisition, drug administration, and initiation/monitoring costs.
resultsGolimumab resulted in an increase of 2.06 QALYs and additional cost of £39,770 compared with conventional therapy. Incremental cost per QALY gained was £19,280 for golimumab, which was lower than adalimumab (£19,737), etanercept (£20,089), and higher than certolizumab pegol (£18,710). Golimumab remained cost-effective throughout a range of sensitivity analyses where key assumptions were tested.
conclusionsFrom a Scottish perspective, golimumab was a cost-effective treatment for nr-axSpA compared with conventional therapy at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 per QALY.
fundingMerck & Co., Inc.
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.