P0732 A cost comparison of treatment sequencing for Ulcerative Colitis: vedolizumab vs ustekinumab as a second-line biologic in anti-TNF-exposed patients in Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory condition characterized by periods of relapse and remission. The main therapeutic goal is to induce and maintain remission to prevent long-term disease progression.1 Given the nature of the condition, patients often cycle through multiple treatments.2 The objective was to evaluate overall costs of treatment sequencing for anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-exposed UC patients from a societal perspective in Canada. Methods A cost-comparison model was developed to investigate two treatment sequences in a hypothetical cohort of anti-TNF-exposed adult (≥ 18 years) UC patients: vedolizumab as a second-line biologic followed by ustekinumab vs. ustekinumab as a second-line biologic followed by vedolizumab. The model time horizon was based on the longest treatment duration from first-line anti-TNF to the end of third-line therapy, which was 8.23 years according to published sources. Treatment persistence was characterized by parametric time-to-discontinuation curves per line of therapy from published literature. Where multiple sources were identified, curves were fitted to pooled data. Treatment costs were based on dosing regimens described in Health Canada product monographs and parametric curves fitted to treatment persistence data. For fourth-line therapy and beyond, patients received a validated mix of subsequent treatment options including upadacitinib, mirikizumab, etrasimod, and colectomy. Costs of treatment, healthcare resource use, adverse event management, and productivity loss were aggregated, with total costs reported. Several scenario analyses assessed base case robustness; statistical testing was not conducted. Results All patients were treated with a first-line anti-TNF regimen for 1.97 years. Patients who then received second-line vedolizumab remained on second-line treatment longer versus those who received second-line ustekinumab (3.79 vs 2.52 years). Patients who received second-line vedolizumab subsequently received ustekinumab for 2.48 years (end of time horizon); for those receiving second-line ustekinumab, patients were subsequently treated with vedolizumab for 3.16 years and the composite mix for 0.59 years. Both treatment sequences yielded similar per-patient-per-year total costs: $203,107 for second-line vedolizumab and $201,988 for second-line ustekinumab. Conclusion Across lines of therapy, treatment persistence for vedolizumab has been reported as superior to ustekinumab. Given the comparable overall costs, the value to patients of extending the duration of earlier lines of therapy and slowing transition to later lines should be considered when treating moderate-to-severe UC. References 1.Wetwittayakhlang P, Lontai L, Gonczi L, et al. Treatment Targets in Ulcerative Colitis: Is It Time for All In, including Histology? J Clin Med. 2021;10(23). 2.Bressler B. Is there an optimal sequence of biologic therapies for inflammatory bowel disease? Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2023;16:17562848231159452.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».