ArticleAdvances in therapy2026
Cost Per Remission of Vedolizumab Versus Risankizumab for the Treatment of Moderately to Severely Active Crohn's Disease in Italy.
Article in Advances in therapy, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCrohn's disease (CD) involves chronic gastrointestinal inflammation and requires lifelong treatment, creating an economic burden for patients and healthcare systems. Approved treatment options for CD in Italy include vedolizumab (VDZ) and risankizumab (RZB). In this analysis, a cost-per-responder model was used to evaluate the comparative value of VDZ and RZB in inducing disease remission after 1 year of treatment.
methodsA cost-per-responder model assessed the cost per patient to achieve clinical remission after 1 year of treatment. Efficacy inputs were obtained from a previously reported matching-adjusted indirect comparison of VDZ versus RZB. Costs included drug acquisition and administration in Italy. Sensitivity analyses assessed the robustness of the results to variations in efficacy rates, efficacy outcomes, and acquisition costs.
resultsCost-per-responder analysis showed that the cost per remission for patients with CD was lower for VDZ than for RZB over 1 year (€114,098 vs. €285,939; - 60.1%). A sensitivity analysis varying clinical remission rates by ± 25% showed that VDZ maintained a lower cost per remission, even when comparing simultaneous decreased VDZ and increased RZB remission rates (€152,130 vs. €228,751). Similarly, the cost per clinical response was also lower for VDZ after 1 year of treatment (€182,987 vs. €245,696), despite RZB exhibiting a numerically higher clinical response rate. Price sensitivity analysis showed that even when the acquisition costs of both RZB and VDZ were substantially discounted, VDZ consistently provided a lower cost per remission.
conclusionsIn Italy, VDZ may represent a more efficient use of healthcare resources than RZB to achieve clinical remission in patients with CD. Graphical abstract available for this article https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.32456697 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
42640435What 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.