ArticleAdvances in therapy2026
Comparative Cost-Effectiveness of Advanced Treatment Sequences for Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis in Japan.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionUlcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic immune-mediated inflammatory disease characterized by a relapsing course, substantial symptom burden, and long-term healthcare utilization. Although multiple advanced therapies (ATs) are available for patients with moderately to severely active UC, evidence to guide optimal treatment sequencing remains limited, particularly in Japan. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of clinically relevant AT sequences for moderately to severely active UC in Japan.
methodsA hybrid decision-tree and Markov model was developed to compare AT sequences over a lifetime horizon from the payer perspective. The model captured both induction and maintenance phases for each therapy. Efficacy and safety inputs were derived from a previously published Bayesian network meta-analysis and supplemented with Japan-specific clinical and economic data. Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were discounted at an annual rate of 2.0%. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated, and cost-effectiveness was assessed against a Japanese cost-effectiveness threshold of JPY 7,500,000 per QALY (USD 49,547 per QALY).
resultsA total of 79 treatment sequences were evaluated. First-line etrasimod followed by second-line upadacitinib yielded the greatest health benefit (17.801 QALYs). Four treatment sequences-infliximab followed by ustekinumab, infliximab followed by etrasimod, infliximab followed by upadacitinib, and etrasimod followed by upadacitinib-were located on the efficiency frontier. Compared with infliximab-ustekinumab, infliximab-etrasimod resulted in an ICER of JPY 1,095,181 (USD 7235) per QALY. In turn, infliximab-upadacitinib had an ICER of JPY 1,218,896 (USD 8052) per QALY compared with infliximab-etrasimod. Etrasimod-upadacitinib had an ICER of JPY 6,684,442 (USD 44,160) per QALY compared with infliximab-upadacitinib. All ICERs were below the Japanese cost-effectiveness threshold.
conclusionUnder the assumptions of this model, a treatment sequence with first-line etrasimod followed by second-line upadacitinib was identified as the most cost-effective strategy for advanced therapy-naïve patients with moderately to severely active UC in Japan.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42709323What 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.