An economic model of long-term use of celecoxib in patients with osteoarthritis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Previous evaluations of the cost-effectiveness of the cyclooxygenase-2 selective inhibitor celecoxib (Celebrex, Pfizer Inc, USA) have produced conflicting results. The recent controversy over the cardiovascular (CV) risks of rofecoxib and other coxibs has renewed interest in the economic profile of celecoxib, the only coxib now available in the United States. The objective of our study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of celecoxib compared with nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (nsNSAIDs) in a population of 60-year-old osteoarthritis (OA) patients with average risks of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) complications who require chronic daily NSAID therapy.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We used decision analysis based on data from the literature to evaluate cost-effectiveness from a modified societal perspective over patients' lifetimes, with outcomes expressed as incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity tests were performed to evaluate the impacts of advancing age, CV thromboembolic event risk, different analytic horizons and alternate treatment strategies after UGI adverse events.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Our main findings were: 1) the base model incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for celecoxib versus nsNSAIDs was $31,097 per QALY; 2) the ICER per QALY was$19,309 for a model in which UGI ulcer and ulcer complication event risks increased with advancing age; 3) the ICER per QALY was $17,120 in sensitivity analyses combining serious CV thromboembolic event (myocardial infarction, stroke, CV death) risks with base model assumptions.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our model suggests that chronic celecoxib is cost-effective versus nsNSAIDs in a population of 60-year-old OA patients with average risks of UGI events.</p

Excess long-term mortality following non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a population-based cohort study

Background It is unclear whether an upper gastrointestinal bleed is an isolated gastrointestinal event or an indicator of a deterioration in a patient's overall health status. Therefore, we investigated the excess causes of death in individuals after a non-variceal bleed compared with deaths in a matched sample of the general population. Methods and Findings Linked longitudinal data from the English Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) data, General Practice Research Database (GPRD), and Office of National Statistics death register were used to define a cohort of non-variceal bleeds between 1997 and 2010. Controls were matched at the start of the study by age, sex, practice, and year. The excess risk of each cause of death in the 5 years subsequent to a bleed was then calculated whilst adjusting for competing risks using cumulative incidence functions. 16,355 patients with a non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleed were matched to 81,523 controls. The total 5-year risk of death due to gastrointestinal causes (malignant or non-malignant) ranged from 3.6% (≤50 years, 95% CI 3.0%–4.3%) to 15.2% (≥80 years, 14.2%–16.3%), representing an excess over controls of between 3.6% (3.0%–4.2%) and 13.4% (12.4%–14.5%), respectively. In contrast the total 5-year risk of death due to non-gastrointestinal causes ranged from 4.1% (≤50 years, 3.4%–4.8%) to 46.6% (≥80 years, 45.2%–48.1%), representing an excess over controls of between 3.8% (3.1%–4.5%) and 19.0% (17.5%–20.6%), respectively. The main limitation of this study was potential misclassification of the exposure and outcome; however, we sought to minimise this by using information derived across multiple linked datasets. Conclusions Deaths from all causes were increased following an upper gastrointestinal bleed compared to matched controls, and over half the excess risk of death was due to seemingly unrelated co-morbidity. A non-variceal bleed may therefore warrant a careful assessment of co-morbid illness seemingly unrelated to the bleed