Health economic evaluation in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in France

Background: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a specific form of chronic, progressive, fibrosing interstitial pneumonia of unknown cause. To date, there is no specific cure for IPF, and only two treatments (pirfenidone and nintedanib) have marketing authorizations and recommendations in interna...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Current medical research and opinion 2018-10, Vol.34 (10), p.1731-1740
Main Authors: Porte, Fanny, Cottin, Vincent, Catella, Laura, Luciani, Laura, Le Lay, Katell, Bénard, Stève
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
cost-benefit analysis
France
Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis
nintedanib
pirfenidone
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a specific form of chronic, progressive, fibrosing interstitial pneumonia of unknown cause. To date, there is no specific cure for IPF, and only two treatments (pirfenidone and nintedanib) have marketing authorizations and recommendations in international and French guidelines. Objectives: A cost-utility analysis (CUA) has been conducted to evaluate the efficiency of nintedanib, in comparison to all available alternatives, in a French setting using the official methodological guidelines. Methods: A previously developed lifetime Markov model was adapted to the French setting by simulating the progression of IPF patients in terms of lung function decline, incidence of acute exacerbations, and death. Considering the effect of IPF on patients' quality-of-life, a CUA integrating quality adjusted life years (QALY) was chosen as the primary outcome measure in the main analysis. One-way, probabilistic, and scenario sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the model. Results: Treatment with nintedanib resulted in an estimated total cost of €76,414 (vs €82,665 for pirfenidone). In comparison with all other available options, nintedanib was predicted to provide the most QALY gained (3.34 vs 3.29). This analysis suggests that nintedanib has a 59.0% chance of being more effective than pirfenidone and s 77.3% chance of being cheaper than pirfenidone. Sensitivity analyses showed the results of the CUA to be robust. Conclusions: In conclusion, this CUA has found that nintedanib appears to be a more cost-effective therapeutic option than pirfenidone in a French setting, due to fewer acute exacerbations and a better tolerability profile.
ISSN:0300-7995
1473-4877
DOI:10.1080/03007995.2018.1433143