Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Nintedanib Versus Pirfenidone in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis in Belgium
C. Rinciog, Α. Διαμαντόπουλος, Arianna Gentilini, Benjamin Bondue, Caroline Dahlqvist, Antoine Froidure, Wim Wuyts, Stéphane Soulard
Abstract
BACKGROUND: ) are recommended by international guidelines as treatment options for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost-effectiveness of nintedanib with that of pirfenidone for the treatment of IPF from a Belgian healthcare payer perspective. METHODS: The economic analysis used a Markov model that calculated outcomes over patient lifetime. Overall survival was assumed to be the same for the two comparators. Data from a network meta-analysis were used for loss of lung function, acute exacerbation events, safety and treatment discontinuation (for any reason). The health-state utility estimates in the model were calculated from EQ-5D scores collected in nintedanib studies. The assumed resource use for background care was also based on patient-level data that were categorised to fit the health states in the model and synthesised with costs and tariffs from Belgian national databases. RESULTS: Treatment with nintedanib resulted in an estimated total cost of €102,315, which was less than the total cost of treatment with pirfenidone (€113,313). Given the similarities in the survival and progression outcomes obtained with nintedanib and pirfenidone, the model predicted near equivalence in total QALYs (3.353 QALYs for the nintedanib arm and 3.318 for the pirfenidone arm). Results were largely driven by model assumptions underlying mortality, acute exacerbations and treatment discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: After performing a synthesis of the most recently published evidence for IPF patients and assuming a Belgian healthcare payer perspective, we found nintedanib to be more cost-saving than pirfenidone.