ArticlePharmacoEconomics - open2026
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Etrasimod Compared With Biologic Therapies for the Treatment of Patients with Moderately-to-Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis in Spain.
Article in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparative Cost-Effectiveness of Advanced Treatment Sequences for Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis in Japan.Advances in therapy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEtrasimod (2 mg orally, once daily) is a novel advanced therapy (AT) for patients aged 16 years and older, with moderately-to-severely active ulcerative colitis (UC). This cost-effectiveness analysis compared etrasimod with biologics for the treatment of moderately-to-severely active UC within the Spanish healthcare system.
methodsA mixed model was used to estimate direct health-related costs (€, 2025) and outcomes (quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) during the patient's lifetime (annual discount rate: 3%). The model simulated the course of UC, including induction and maintenance treatments, modeled by a decision tree and a Markov model. Model inputs were derived from scientific literature. All data were validated by a multidisciplinary panel of national experts. Etrasimod was compared against commonly used treatments in Spain in AT-naïve (vs adalimumab, golimumab, infliximab, intravenous vedolizumab [vedolizumab-IV], subcutaneous vedolizumab [vedolizumab-SC]) and AT-experienced patients (vs adalimumab, golimumab, infliximab, ustekinumab, vedolizumab-IV, vedolizumab-SC) by estimating incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.
resultsEtrasimod yielded 19.505 QALYs and €600,289 per AT-naïve patient lifetime, being associated with more QALYs and cost savings than adalimumab (+0.042; -€35,084), golimumab (+0.107; -€39,424), infliximab (+0.039; -€49,514), vedolizumab-IV (+0.170; -€16,153) and vedolizumab-SC (+0.166; -€55,850). In AT-experienced patients, etrasimod produced 18.407 QALYs and €589,423/patient lifetime. In this population, etrasimod was also associated with more QALYs and cost-savings versus adalimumab (+0.013; -€20,850), ustekinumab (+0.018; -€39,354), vedolizumab-IV (+0.166; -€572) and vedolizumab-SC (+0.171; -€26,890). Etrasimod was dominant versus all biologic therapies. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses varying all model inputs confirmed the robustness of the results (etrasimod dominancy).
conclusionsIn AT-naïve and AT-experienced patients, etrasimod is a dominant therapy (cost savings, greater effectiveness) compared with commonly used ATs.
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.