Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Parenteral Methotrexate for the Treatment of Crohn’s Disease

Tomas Mlcoch, Barbora Decker () and Tomas Dolezal
Additional contact information
Tomas Mlcoch: Value Outcomes
Barbora Decker: Value Outcomes
Tomas Dolezal: Value Outcomes

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2021, vol. 19, issue 4, No 11, 593-604

Abstract: Abstract Background Despite worldwide use of parenteral methotrexate (pMTX), health economic evidence for its use in Crohn’s disease (CD) is limited. The low price of this generic drug has removed any commercial incentive to further invest in research. However, there is an unmet need for treatment of mild-to-moderate CD, since biological/targeted therapies are usually reserved for patients with more severe disease due to the higher costs of these treatments. Objective To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pMTX compared to the standard of care (SOC, i.e., high doses of oral corticosteroids (hdCS) followed by gradual tapering) for the treatment of mild-to-moderate CD in the Czech Republic. Methods We developed a 3-year Markov model with a 1-week cycle length comprising five health states. The model projected quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs from the healthcare payers’ perspective. Efficacy data were obtained from a systematic literature review of clinical trials and extrapolated using survival analysis. Results Over a 3-year time-horizon, pMTX yields additional 0.111 QALYs (1.798 vs. 1.687) at an additional cost of €513 (€3087 vs. €2574), with an incremental deterministic (probabilistic) cost-effectiveness ratio of €4627 (€4742)/QALY, far below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold (≈ €47,000/QALY). The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of pMTX being cost-effective was 100%. A one-way sensitivity and scenario analysis confirmed the robustness of the base-case result. Conclusion Parenteral MTX proved to be cost-effective in patients with mild-to-moderate CD. This is the first published cost-effectiveness analysis of pMTX for this indication. It also shows an example of a lack of valuation of generic therapy despite its cost-effectiveness and a clear benefit to the healthcare system.

Date: 2021
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-020-00628-y Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:19:y:2021:i:4:d:10.1007_s40258-020-00628-y

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40258

DOI: 10.1007/s40258-020-00628-y

Access Statistics for this article

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson

More articles in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().