ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2024
Cost-effectiveness analysis of Tocilizumab compared to Adalimumab in the treatment of severe active rheumatoid arthritis in Iran.
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveThis study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of Tocilizumab (TCZ) compared with Adalimumab (ADA) in patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), who had not responded to methotrexate (MTX), from a societal perspective in Iran.
methodTo conduct the cost-utility analysis, using an individual microsimulation Markov model, a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 patients was evaluated over a lifetime horizon. The efficacy and safety of each treatment were estimated using the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria to determine the continuation or switching of treatment every six months. Treatment responses were captured based on Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) scores and mapped into utility values to determine QALY gained for each treatment. All direct and indirect costs associated with the disease and perspective were included according to societal perspective. Deterministic and Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model.
resultsThe result of the study estimated that TCZ is a more cost-effective treatment option, with a probability of 76%. TCZ was associated with a higher cost ($6,990 versus $6,608) and higher QALYs gained (4.24 versus 3.95) compared to ADA with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD 1,301, which is below the willingness-to-pay threshold of 1,448 USD in Iran.
conclusionThis study provides convincing evidence of the cost-effectiveness of TCZ compared to ADA in the treatment of active severe RA in Iran.
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.